The conviction under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires proof of sale or stocking of drugs without a valid license, and procedural compliance in investigations is crucial for upholding such convictions.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri K.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

2. The accused-petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 401 read with Sec. 397 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II JMFC, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.5523/2023 dtd. 13/8/2012 and confirmed by judgment passed by the learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.247/2012 dtd. 5/7/2016, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 18(c) read with 27 (b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.5, 000.00 in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before trial Court. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is complainant before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:

The accused was dealing in drugs in firm M/s.Vaghbhata Ayurvedic Agencies at Padil, Mangalore without having a valid licence under the Act. Thus, accused No.2-Drugs Inspector along with accused No.3- Assistant Drugs Controller along with panchas conducted a test purchase on 8/2/2001 by sending one person by name Sri.Rajesh to the firm of the accused. Thereafter, he verified and seized some of the drugs from the medical shop of the accused. It was found that the accused was dealing in drugs Stopache 5 x 10, Ring Guard 5 tubes, D'cold tablets 5 stripes and found stock of various drugs for sale and distribution in his premises without any licence. Thereafter, P.W.1 sent those drugs to laboratory for testing and found that the accused had kept the drugs for selling illegally and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 18(c) read with 27 (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence, PW.1 lodged the complaint, which led to the investigation. Thereafter, the trial Court took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and framed charges for the aforesaid offence.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined in all 8 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.8 and documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.61 as well as the material objects in MO's.1 to 19. Thereafter, the trial Court recorded the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution witnesses and evidence to the accused. The case of the accused was one of total denial, and the accused did not enter the witness box.

6. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 18(c) read with Sec. 27(b)(ii) of the and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.5, 000.00 in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.247/2012 before the First Appellate Court, in turn, the Appellate Court confirmed the order of the trial Court, and dismissed the appeal. Now, aggrieved by the orders of both the Courts, the accused filed this revision petition.

8. Sri. K. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court erred in convicting the petitioner as the investigation was done before an Authority having no jurisdiction. Further, the alleged place of commission of offence does not fall within the jurisdiction of PW.1 and therefore, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the petitioner on this count.

9. Further, the trial Court convicted the petitioner without there being any material witnesses and the materi