The possession of drugs for the purpose of selling must be proven, and the accused's role as in-charge of the firm and responsibility for its day-to-day affairs must be established under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

JUDGMENT :

B.A. Patil, J.

Heard the learned HCGP on I.A.No.1/2019. The said application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. With the consent of the learned HCGP, the same is taken up for final disposal.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a Drug Officer. He received a credible information that the accused No.1 - partnership firm running in the name of M/s. Bhawar Inc Corporation. Accused Nos.2 - 5 are the partners of the firm. Accused No.6 is the partnership firm and the accused No.7 is the Branch in-charge of the said office. They are dealing with the Drugs without there being any valid and effective license. On 07.03.2016, he accompanied with two witnesses visited the accused-firm. At that time the accused No.7 was present. There they found stocked Vicks Action 500 plus bearing Batch No.602005623037 without license. The said tablets have been seized by drawing a mahazar and sent them for analysis test. After receiving the report and after obtaining necessary permission from the Government, the complaint has been filed on 18.03.2019. After filing of the charge sheet the accused No.7 appeared and insofar as in respect of the other accused persons, the case was split up. After following the procedure the plea of the accused No.7 was recorded. He pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined 17 witnesses and got marked 36 documents and also MO's 1 to 5. Thereafter, the accused was came to be examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused led her evidence as DW-1 and got marked 2 documents as Ex.D1 & D2. After hearing both the parties, the impugned order was came to be passed acquitting the accused No.7. Assailing the same, the State is before this Court.

4. It is the specific contention of the learned HCGP that the Trial Court without properly appreciating the material placed on record has wrongly acquitted the accused. The Trial Court has not considered the gravity of the offences and the fact that the firm was not having any license to keep the said drug and the firm is responsible for storing the said tablets. He further submitted that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the course of cross-examination nothing has been elicited to discard their evidence. The Trial Court by relying upon the decision which are not applicable to the said facts of the case has came to a wrong conclusion and has acquitted the accused. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal by admitting the same and notice be issued to the respondent.

5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the leaned HCGP and perused the records.

6. Pw-1 is a Drug Controller who seized the Drugs in question and drawn Mahazar. In his evidence, he has deposed that they visited accused No.6 firm and there accused No.7 and another lady were present and they also noticed Vicks Action 500 plus tables and she had no license to store the same. The said tablets have been seized and a chemical analysis was also obtained. The said witness has been cross-examined in length. In his evidence, he has admitted the fact that the said punchas are not from the said locality and accused No.7 was working in the said firm as a Computer System Operator. But the said suggestion has been denied and it has been answered and he do not know in what capacity she was working. He further admitted that in the appointment letter of the accused No.7 there is no discussion that the accused No.7 is the in-charge of the accused No.6 firm. PW-2 is the Chief Scientific Officer. He has deposed that he has issued the analysis test report and as per the test report the seized tablets were of good quality drugs and he has given the report as per Ex.P-13. This witness has not been cross examined by the accused. PW-3 is Punch witness. He has also reiterated the evidence of PW-1 and admits the fact that MOs-1 to 5 were seized