( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the judgment dated 16-10-2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2007 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, mahabubnagar, whereby and where under retrial of the Criminal case has been ordered. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the judgment of a case between, sailendra Nath Chatterjee v. The State (1) 1984 crllj 1036 submitted that ordering retrial by the appellate Court is illegal. His main submission is that P. W. 1/the Drug Inspector has not filed any notification duly notifying the area under which he was authorized to discharge the duties and in the absence of any such notification, the entire proceedings become illegal and improper.

( 2 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor did not dispute the legal position.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the petitioners herein are A-1, A-2 and A-3 before the trial Court. The Drug Inspector, mahabubnagar District are filed a complaint against the petitioner/a-1 to A-3 (Hereinafter referred as 'a-1 to A-3') under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for violation of Sections 18 (a) (i), 18 (c) 18-A, 18-B and Sections 24 and 22 (1) (CCA) punishable under Sections 27 (d) 27 (b) (ii), 28 28-A, 28 and 22 (3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. A-1 is m/s. Chennakesha Bandage and Guage Cloth mig. Tadipathri, Ananthapur District is a proprietary firm, A-2 is its proprietor and a-3 claimed to be proprietor of A-1 w. e. f. 21-5-2001 basing on G. P. A. from A-2. On 30-11-2000, the Drug Inspector inspected the surgical stores of the District Hospital, mahabubnagar in the presence of P. W. 2/ u. Rangaiah, Pharmacist of the said Stores and lifted rolled bandages of 10 cm x 4 m size without any label of A-1 firm. The samples were sent to Government Analyst, Drugs control laboratory, Hyderabad, and the remaining 387 dozens of 10 cm x 4 m size of rolled bandages were seized under Form 15. On 4-1-2001 the Drug Inspector issued notice under Section 18-A of the Act to P. W. 3 the then Medial Superintendent to disclose the name and address and other particulars of the persons from whom the said bandages were obtained. On 25-1-2000 he received a letter from P. W. 3 stating that those bandages were purchased from A-1 firm as per the instructions of the Commissioner of Andhra pradesh Vaidhya Vidhana Parishad (Hereinafter referred as 'a. P. V. V. P' ). The copies of the necessary documents were furnished on 12-2-2001. The Drug Inspector issued a notice under Section 18 (1), 18 (b) and 24 of the Act to A-1 firm to disclose the names and address of the person from whom the said bandages were obtained to furnish the records and to disclose the place where the said rolled bandages were manufactured. On 16-2-2001, the Drug Inspector received statistical report under Form No. 13 along with covering letter from the Government analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, hyderabad, declaring that the said rolled bandages are not of standard quality for the reason that the sample does not meet the specification for rolled bandages as per schedule F (ii) of the Act. After following the required procedure, the charge sheet was filed.

( 4 ) IN order to prove their case, the prosecution has examined P. Ws. 1 to 5 and exs. P-1 to P-29 and material objects M. Os. 1 to 4 were marked. None were examined on behalf of the Accused but Exs. D-1 to D-4 were marked in their defence. The learned Judicial magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar found the accused guilty and convicted them as under:

"a-1 is sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 5,000/- in default A-2 its proprietor to suffer S. I. for a period of six months for the offences punishable under section 27 (b) (ii) read with Section 18 (c)of the Act. A-2 is sentenced to undergo s. I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer S. I. for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 27 (b) (ii) read with Section 18 (c) of the Act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document