IMPORTANT POINT
Proper sentence is an amalgam of many factors pertaining to offence itself as also others such as prior record if any, age, record of employment, education, home life, social adjustment and emotional and mental conditions of offender etc.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 6th September 2021 in CRLRC No. 413 of 2019, by which interference in the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur¹ [‘The lower Appellate Court’] dated 16th April, 2019 has been refused. The lower Appellate Court had modified the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate² [‘The Trial Court’] dated 23rd November 2018 in as much as it set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 18 (c) read with Section 27 (b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940³ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’] while confirming the conviction and sentence in regard to Section 18(A) read with Section 28, of the said Act.

3. A brief review of facts, as borne out by the judgments of the Courts below is necessary for adjudication of the instant dispute.

3.1 One Palani⁴ [Referred to as ‘The Appellant’] ran a clinic which on 13th October, 2015 was inspected by the officials of the State, viz. The Pallippattu Range Drug Inspector; Joint Director, Tiruvallur District Health Department; Zone Drug Inspector Poonamallee.

3.2 The inspection found 29 types of allopathic medicines meant for distribution without the proper paperwork (license) for sale. Moreover, upon being questioned as to the source of procurement of these medicines, details remained unfurnished.

3.3 The Drug Inspector, Pallippattu filed a complaint under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under the Sections noted above. Prosecution was initiated on the basis of 6 witnesses; 12 Exhibits and with the 29 types of medicines (a small quantity⁵ [Annexure P-1]) recovered, being marked as material objects.

3.4 Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the Trial Court found the case of the prosecution to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the Appellant was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In default whereof, he was to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offences under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii). For the offence under Section 18A read with 28 of the Act, the sentence was six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with one-month simple imprisonment in default. Sentences awarded were concurrent in nature. Further, a cost of Rs. 2,500/- stood imposed for newspaper publication under Section 35 of the said Act.

3.5 On appeal, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, i.e. the lower Appellate Court was faced primarily with the issue, of whether it has been proved that the drugs recovered were in the possession of the appellant for the purpose of sale/distribution.

3.6 In deciding this question, the Court noted that no patients or any other persons were examined to establish that the drugs so confiscated were actually sold. No bills/receipts were produced. It was noted that PW-5 as also PW-3 testified to the fact that the Appellant was running a medical shop, but it was observed that no proof had been offered to show that the drugs in the clinic were for sale. The Court also relied on Ex. P-10 (letter of the accused to the Drug Inspector) referred to as A-10 in its judgment, to state that there is only admission of possession but none for sale/distribution. It was, therefore, observed that no evidence has been put forth by the complainant in regard to sale and/or distribution. The offence under Section 18 (c) of the Act was, therefore, not proven.

3.7 The conviction and sentence in this regard was set aside while others were confirmed. Accordingly, it was held that the Appellant was entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

4. A criminal revision case stood filed against the judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court. It was observed that the scope of a Revisional Court is limited and is not akin to an Appellate Court. On account of the absence of any perversity or infirmity in the order of the l