Back
V. SRINIVAS
Alapati Babu Sudhakar – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
ORDER :
V. Srinivas, J.
Assailing the judgment dated 25.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.209 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused No.4 by the judgment dated 08.10.2009 in C.C.No.170 of 1997 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru, for the offence under section 18(a)(i) r/w.17B(d) punishable under Section 27(c) and section 18(a)(i) r/w.17(b) punishable under Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the petitioner/accused No.4 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. The revision case was admitted on 26.08.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2587 of 2011.
3. The shorn of necessary facts are that :
Statements made to Drug Inspectors are admissible in evidence, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was established in this case.
Statements made to Drug Inspectors are admissible in evidence, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are upheld unless proven erroneous.
The court can invoke the Probation of Offenders Act to release an offender on probation considering their age, health, and lack of prior criminal history.
Compliance with statutory provisions is essential for the validity of prosecution actions; failure to adhere to such requirements can lead to acquittal.
Directors are liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for the conduct of the company's business, and summoning orders require only a prima facie case without extensive procedural scrutiny.
Conviction under drug regulation provisions requires proving non-compliance, highlighting the importance of disclosing the manufacturer's details for legal protection.
The court upheld the interpretation of misbranding under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, making company directors liable for offenses under corporate conduct.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
