DRUGS INSPECTOR Vs. DANDE THIRUMALA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents 1 to 5/Accused Nos.1 to 5 recorded vide judgment dtd. 12/6/2019 in C.C.No.410 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) The 1st respondent/Accused No.1 was charged for the offences punishable under Sec. 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act ') and respondents 2 to 5/Accused Nos.2 to 5 were charged for the offences punishable under Sec. 27(d) of the Act.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1-B.Lakshmi Narayana assisted by P.Ws.2 and 3 inspected the premises of the 1st respodndent/A1 and found 32 varieties of drugs. The 1st respondent/A1 failed to produce any drug licence for stocking the said 32 varieties of drugs and no purchase bills or any record was found regarding the drugs found. In the said circumstances, P.W.1 seized the said drugs in the presence of panch witnesses. The said samples of drugs were sent to the Government Analyst, Drug Control Lab, Hyderabad. However, it was found that the drugs were of standard quality. P.W.1 also searched the premises of respondents 2 to 5/Accused Nos.2 to 5 and after 1st respondent/A1 informed P.W.1 that the drugs found were purchased from Accused Nos.2 to 5. However, no bills were produced regarding the seized drugs by A1 or A2 to A5. For the said reason, a private complaint was filed by P.W.1 alleging offences under Sec. 18(c) of the Act and Sec. 27(b)(ii) of the Act. Further, A1 has violated Rule 65(4) and 65(9)(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and punishable under Sec. 27(d) of the Act.