IMPORTANT POINTS
As per Section 27(b)(ii), Proviso, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, court may impose sentence of imprisonment for a term less than minimum one year and a fine of less than five thousand only.
Concurrent findings of trial court and the first appellate court should not be reversed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Carbon copies of documents are admissible in evidence.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 12.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Madras in Criminal R.C. No.1493 of 2013 in and by which the High Court set aside the conviction of the respondent-accused under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the respondent-accused.

3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that the respondent was running a medical shop viz., M/s. Sri Balaji Medicals. On the directions issued by the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Salem Zone, the Drugs Inspectors had inspected the respondent’s medical shop on 17.12.2008. In the course of inspection, it was found that certain drugs were stored without a valid drug licence and the same were seized. A memo dated 22.12.2008 had been issued to the respondent-accused alleging contravention of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The respondent had caused reply (Ex.-P4) to the said memo without furnishing details of purchase. The Drug Inspector has filed a charge sheet against the respondent informing commission of offence punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Upon consideration of evidence, the trial court after referring to Ex.-P4 held that the respondent has admitted that he has no licence to the premises for sale of drugs. The trial court further held that Exs.P-4 to P-7 though were carbon copies, as per Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, they can also be considered as primary evidence. On those findings, the trial court convicted the respondent and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and imposed fine of Rs.5000/-under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and fine of Rs.500/-under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Aggrieved by the verdict of conviction and the sentence of imprisonment, respondent-accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2013 before the appellate court-Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri which was dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2013.

4. In the revision petition filed before the High Court, the High Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the respondent holding that non-examination of erstwhile owners namely Jayanthi and Kamalakannan in whose name pharmacy licence stood was fatal to the prosecution case. The High Court also referred to the defence that the signature of the respondent was obtained on blank papers in which Exs.P-4, P-7 and P-10 were prepared.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the High Court has failed to consider that the respondent without having a valid licence stocked and selling the drugs and that he did not disclose the name of the supplier of the drugs, which is a punishable offence under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It was further submitted that the High Court erred in allowing the revision on the ground that the signature in Exs.P-4, P7 and P-10 were obtained on blank papers and that the respondent had failed to prove such fact. It was also submitted that in the light of the admission made by the respondent in Ex.-P4, non-examination of Kamalakannan in whose name the pharmacy licence stood and one Jayanthi in whose name the shop stood was not fatal and the High Court erred in reversing the conviction of the respondent.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent is the owner of M/s Sri Balaji Medicals and the non-examination of Kamalakannan and Jayanthi was fatal to the prosecution case. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged statement of the respondent in Exs.P-4, P-7 and P-10 relied upon by the prosecution were only carbon copies and the courts below could not have based the conviction upon Exs.P-4, P-7 and P-10 and that the High Court has rightly reversed the same.

7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the imp