DRUGS INSPECTOR Vs. CHIPPA THIRUPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the acquittal of the sole respondent, the State preferred the present appeal. The respondent was charged for the offence under Sec. 27(b)(ii), 28 and 22(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for brevity 'the Act') for contravention of Ss. 18(c), 18(A) and 22(1)(cca) of the Act.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the prosecution in the complaint filed before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad was that the respondent was found in the premises of door No.2-215, Chata Village and in possession of drugs meant for sale, without a valid licence, as detailed in Exs.P1 and P2 which are Form No.16 and Panchanama. P.W.1, who is the Drug Inspector in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are panch witnesses to seizure conducted the seizure of the said drugs. Having seized the said drugs, P.W.1 issued notices to produce valid licence if any. The respondent did not reply to the said notice. P.W.1 further caused enquiry about the ownership of the premises and in the process, examined P.Ws 4 and 5, who are building owner and Panchayat Secretary of the said village.

(3.) The grounds on which the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent/accused are that; i) the exclusive possession of the premises in which the drugs were found was not proved to be that of the accused; ii) the witnesses to the seizure P.Ws.2 and 3 have turned hostile and denied the seizure; (iii) the date on Ex.P12 sent to P.W.4 was corrected; iv) the tour diary of P.W.1 was not produced though P.W.1 admitted to have maintained a diary and written the details.