This Criminal Revision case is directed against the judgment, dated 13-8-2002 in Criminal Appeal No.429 of 200` on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2.The breif facts that are necessary for disposal of this Revision are that P.W.1 inspected M/s. Thrimurthy Pharma Private limited, Hyderabad and found Gelusil MPS suspension, Batch No.117 manufactured by A1 proprietary ship concern stocked for sale along with other drugs and tok the said drug for test after following the procedure. The sample that has taken by P.W.1 was sent to the Analyst for that the drug in question is not of standard quality as the drug was not confirmed to the labeled claim in respect of Magnesium Hydroxide contend i.e. 110.8 mg out of the labeled claim of 200 mg. Hence the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’) for violating the provisions of Section 18(a) (i) of the Act.

3. Before the trial Court, on appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. When examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty.

4.To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.14 besides case property, M.O.1.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused.

6. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced A1 to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 and A2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 27( d) of the Act for violation of Section 18(a) (i) of the Act. On appeal by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciation of entire oral evidence and material available on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence pased by the trial Court. Challenging the same, this revision has been filed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, there is no material filed by the prosecution to show that P.W.1 is the Drug Inspector for the area in which samples were taken and that no material is filed to show, that the sample analyzed by the Analyst is duly appointed by the Government and therefore, he prays to allow the

Revision.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the concurrent findings of the Courts below need not be interfered, with in view of the fact that the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record, that the findings are not shown to be illegal or improper and therefore, he prays to dismiss the Revision.

9. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is truncated one. Unless the findings are illegal, improper or incorrect

normally this Court will not interfere with the same. Section 20 deals with appointment of Government Analysts, which reads as follows:

“ 20 Government Analysts:- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Government Analyst for such areas in the State and in respect of such drugs or (classes or drugs or such cosmetics or classes of cosmetics) as may be specified in the notification.

(2) The Central Government may also, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Government Analysts in respect of such drugs o