The validity of the trial does not depend upon the validity of the investigation conducted, and any irregularities in the investigation do not necessarily vitiate the trial if the evidence is otherwise relevant and not influenced by the irregularities.

GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of the 4th City Magistrate, Hyderabad given on 16/03/1965, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused.

( 2 ) THE essential facts are that the accused are the partners of the shop named and styled as "fida Hussain All Hussain" Medical and General Stores, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. The accused held Licence No. 117/62 in Form 20-A and 148/62 in Form 20-B issued on 1-1-1962 by the Drugs Controller, Andhra Pradesh. The accused deal in medicines manufactured by various firms.

( 3 ) ON 3-7-1963, on getting information that the accused have been selling misbranded and spurious drugs like Tincture Iodine, Eucalyptus Oil, Glucose Powder and Woodwards Celebrated Gripe Water etc. , the Drugs Inspector (P. W. 1) accompanied by P. W. 2 Drugs Inspector Nanded, and a Police Officer and Panchayatdars went to the shop of the accused at about 3 p. m. They sent one Suryakanth (P. W. 3) to purchase specimens of drugs. Accused 1 was at the counter and was at the counter and was selling medicines. P. W. 3 purchased Tincture Iodine, Eucalyptus oil, Woodwards Celebrated Gripe Water, Glucose Powder along with some other general goods and paid three currency notes of ten rupee denomination, each of which were initialled as M. V. R. by the Drugs Inspector P. W. 1.

( 4 ) AFTER having purchased the above said drugs from the accuseds shop, P. W. 3 signalled to P. W. 1 and the party who were waiting outside the shop at a distance. P. W. and the Party came and seized the goods which were purchased by P. W. 3. They seized also the three currency notes from the possession of the 1st accused and also bottles of the above mentioned medicines from the shop of the accused.

( 5 ) SAMPLES of these medicines which were seized from the accuseds shop were sent to the Government Analyst for analysis and report. The Woodwards Gripe Water sample was also sent to the concerned company in order to find out whether the drug was prepared by that company. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the drugs sold by the accused were misbranded and were not of standard quality and were not in conformity with the schedule to the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act (XXIII of 1940) hereinafter referred to as "the Act" The accused therefore were charge-sheeted by P. W. 4 the Drugs Inspector under Sections 18 (a) (I), 18 (a) (ii) and 18 (b) read with Section by 27 of the Act, The charge-sheet was filed under the signature of P. W. 4 on 18-4-1964.

( 6 ) THE accused denied the charges, They contended that no medicine was seized from their shop nor the 1st accused sold any medicine to P. W. 3.

( 7 ) IN support of the prosecution, eight witnesses were examined and several documents were marked. The accused did not produce any evidence nor did they mark any documents. Upon this material, the learned Magistrate found that the three accused are the partners of the firm of Messrs. Fida Hussain Ali Hussain, General Merchants, that the drugs were sold by accused 1 on behalf of the firm to P. W. 3 on the date when the occurrence took place that the drugs were seized and samples were sent to the Government Analyst and that the Government Analysts report is that the Tincture Iodine, Woodwards Celebrated Gripe Water and Glucose Powder were not genuine, that they were of sub-standard quality, that the Gripe Water was not of the real Company and that the Company, Messrs. C. N. and Co. , under whose name the bottles were labeled and sold was not in existence nor was it registered. The learned Magistrate however acquitted the accused solely on the ground that P. W. 1 was not the Drugs Inspector for Hyderabad City and the investigation which he carried on was illegal and therefore the proceedings before the Magistrate were not proper and valid. It is this view of the learned Magistrate that is now challenged in this appeal by the State.

( 8 ) THE principal question to be answered in the appeal is whether the investigation conducted by P.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document