STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NIRANJAN LAL CHEEPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 7th November, 1988, passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in sessions case no. 8/88 whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 18 (c) and Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act.

(2.) THE necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are as under :-That on 27-12-1978, Vinod Kumar Dhal drugs Inspector, Jaipur (P. W. 2) inspected the Clinic of the accused Niranjan Lal Chippa at Dausa. The accused respondent was found running his clinic unauthorizedly, named under the style of 'mamta Clinic'. During the course of inspection, P. W. 2 Vinod Kumar dhal found that the accused respondent having neither valid drug-licence to stock drugs required under the Act nor he was authorized in any manner for stocking the same. The Inspector also found that the accused was examining his patient illegally without authorization of public licence and was also giving medicine from the stock maintained in his clinic. Apart from drug stock, he also found table and stove etc. After inspection, Vinod Kumar Dhal (P. W. 2)prepared inspection report (Ex. P. 5) and also seized the drugs from the clinic and sealed them and also prepared seizure memo on the prescribed form No. 16 (Ex. P. 6 ). After obtaining the Court order, certain articles were seized. That the entire matter was referred by him (P. W. 2) to the Drug Controller, Rajasthan, jaipur who on agreeing to prima facie controversy under Section 18 (c) and granted prosecution sanction. Accordingly, a complaint was submitted by the then Drugs Inspector Sh. Dev Krishan shringi, before the Court of Chief Judicial magistrate, Jaipur on 15-4-1982 who recorded the statement of P. W. 2 Vinod Kumar dhal. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session on 23-5-1988 as the offence committed by the accused attracted the punishment with imprisonment up to 10 years under Section 27 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge has transferred the aforesaid matter to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur has framed the charges for the offence under section 18 (c) and S. 27 of the Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 5 witnesses and got some documents exhibited. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondent under Section 313, Cr. P. C. were recorded.-After conclusion of the trial, the learned addl. Sessions Judge Jaipur City through his judgment and order dated 7th November, 1988 acquitted the accused respondent of the charges framed against him holding inter alia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused respondent. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 7th November, 1988 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 5, jaipur City, Jaipur, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the sentence.

(3.) IN this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly. He has drawn the attention of this court upon Section 18 (c) and Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940. He has also drawn the attention of this Court upon the rajasthan Gazette Notification published on 30 July 1964, Page 194 (21), Medical and health Department, Order dated July 7, 1964 which reads as under :-