STATE REP. BY THE DRUGS INSPECTOR versus MANIMARAN

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 30-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
395
STATE REP. BY THE DRUGS INSPECTOR
v.
MANIMARAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 1493 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 30, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – ss. 18(c), 27(b)(ii), 28 and
proviso to 27(b)(ii) – Prosecution case was that when drugs
inspectors had inspected the respondent’s medical shop, they had
found certain drugs stored without a valid licence – Memo was
issued to the respondent u/s.18(c) and afterwards chargesheet was
filed u/ss. 27(b)(ii) and 28 – Trial Court convicted the respondent
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
and imposed fine of Rs.5000/- u/s.27(b)(ii) of the Act and fine of
Rs.500/- u/s.28 of the Act – Appeal was dismissed by the first
appellate Court – In revision, the High Court reversed the conviction
and acquitted the respondent holding that person in whose name
pharmacy licence stood and the person in whose name the shop
stood were not examined, and furthermore that signatures of the
respondent were taken on blank papers and that Exs.P-4, P-7 and
P-10 were made using the same – On appeal, held: The High Court
did not keep in view that the respondent had admitted that he had
purchased the shop from the erstwhile owner and that he had no
licence for sale of drugs either in his name or in any other name –
When both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court held
that non-examination of erstwhile owner of the shop and person in
whose name the pharmacy licence stood was not fatal, the High
Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was not right in
reversing the said finding – Insofar as signatures of the respondent
on blank papers were concerned, the respondent did not lodge any
police complaint or complaint before the higher officers of the Drug
inspector or caused any legal notice to the complainant, thus, it
was only an afterthought of the respondent to defend himself that
his signature were obtained on blank papers – From the evidence
of Drug inspector and the admission of the respondent, the
prosecution had established that respondent did not have licence
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 395
395
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
396                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
for sale of drugs – However, in instant case, the offence was
committed ten years back and respondent was not having any prior
conviction under the Act, further, he had stated in his statement that
he was not aware that he had to obtain licence for sale of drugs –
Therefore, in interest of justice proviso to s.27(b)(ii) of the Act
invoked and the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed upon
the respondent reduced to three months, while maintaining the fine
of Rs.5000/- –  Jurisdiction – Revisional Jurisdiction.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.62 – Carbon copies – Held: Carbon
copies can be taken into consideration as primary evidence.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  Upon consideration of the evidence, both the
trial court as well as the first appellate court convicted the
respondent under  Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act.  When there is concurrent findings by the courts
below, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same
in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction
of the High Court is different from the appellate jurisdiction. The
High court will not normally interfere with the concurrent findings
of fact, unless the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below is
perverse or that the court has ignored the material evidence while
arriving at that finding.  Ordinarily it would not be appropriate for
the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own
conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been
appreciated by the Magistrate as well as by the Sessions court in
appeal. When the courts below recorded the concurrent findings
of fact, the High Court was not right in interfering with the
concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below and the
impugned order cannot be sustained. [Para 16][401-G-H;
402-A-B]
2.  The offence under Section 18(c) of the Act is punishable
under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act which prescribes minimum
sentence of imprisonment for one year and minimum fine of
rupees five thousand. As per proviso to Section 27(b)(ii) of the
Act, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the
judgment, court may impose the sentence of imprisonment for a
term less than one year and a fine of less than five thousand only.
In thi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.