Point of Law: Imposition of appropriate punishment is manner in which courts respond to society’s cry for justice against criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting crime so that courts reflect public abhorrence of crime.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 3659/2014 dated 01.04.2015 convicting the respondent/accused for offences under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as well as the order passed by the First Appellate Court in Crl. Appeal No. 129/2015 dated 16.02.2018 dismissing the appeal as not maintainable under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C.

2. This petition though listed for admission, is heard finally and is disposed of by this order, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties.

3. The Trial Court in C.C. No. 3659/2014 (Old C.C. No. 797/2012) dated 1.4.2015 held the respondent/accused S.B. Shivakumar guilty for offences under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and he was sentenced to undergo a day’s imprisonment, till the rising of the Court. The accused also was imposed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- failing which he was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. When the said order was challenged by the State by way of an appeal for inadequacy of sentence, the First Appellate Court in Crl. Appeal No. 129/2015 dated 16.02.2015 dismissed the said appeal as not maintainable under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. The judgment rendered by the Trial Court which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court has been challenged in this petition urging that adequate punishment be imposed on the accused for the alleged offences. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal whereby challenging the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, on the ground of maintainability of the appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. which requires intervention.

4. In this petition, the learned HCGP for the State seeks for consideration of the grounds urged in this petition and to award adequate sentence for the offences lugged against the accused. It is contended that the accused had violated Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 read with Rule 65(2) and Rule 65(3)(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which is punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. According to the provisions of Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, if a person contravenes the said provision, he or she shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to two years and with fine and which shall not be less than Rs. 20,000/- provided that the Court may record adequate or special reasons in the judgment in order to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year. But in the instant case, it is the contention of the learned HCGP that both the Courts have not assigned any reasons for imposing inadequate sentence. Hence, the said judgments of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are not in accordance with law. If adequate sentence is not passed against the accused, it would result in a miscarriage of justice and gravamen of the complainant/State would be the sufferer. On these premise, learned HCGP for the State prays to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 3659/2014 dated 1.4.2015 as well as the order of the First Appellate Court in Crl. Appeal No. 129/2015 dated 16.02.2018 and thereby to award adequate sentence against the respondent/accused for the alleged offences.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Madhu R has taken this Court through the concept of Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 whereby the complainant/ State had initiated criminal prosecution against the accused who is arraigned as the respondent herein as urged. Subsequently, an application under Section 265-B of Cr.P.C. seeking for ‘plea bargaining’ was made by the accused/respondent. On 30.03.2015, plea bargaining was conducted as per the order-sheet maintained in C.C. No. 3659/2014.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in that matter who represented the complainant/State and the accused as well, was present along wi