IMPORTANT POINT
An admission of guilt can negate the need for further evidence, and procedural errors under Section 313 do not automatically invalidate a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

2. The applicant/accused has impugned the judgment and order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule in R.C.C. No.472/1994 dated 21.07.1999 as well as the order of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Appeal No.30/1999 dated 06.11.2004.

3. The applicant was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 33 EEC (a) and 33 EEC (c) punishable under Sections 33 I (1) (a)(ii) and 33 I (1) (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

4. It was alleged against the applicant that the applicant was manufacturing spurious ‘Gulvel Satva’. He was running the pharmaceutical firm under the name M/s. Satpuda Pharmaceuticals. He had appointed the authorized agents for his product. The Drug Inspector visited one Madhura Agency and found the bottles containing medicine without any label, and other requisite details. When the inquiry was made, it was learnt that the applicant was manufacturing that medicine. The seized product was sent to the Chemical Analyzer. The Chemical Analyzer submitted the report that the substance was spurious and substandard. The applicant addressed a letter Exhibit-28 to the authority admitting that the seized medicine was manufactured in his company.

5. Both Courts, appreciating the evidence, believed that the seized medicine ‘Gulvel Satva’ was manufactured in the pharmaceutical company run by the applicant, namely M/s. Satpuda Pharmaceuticals. Holding the accused guilty, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 33 I (1)(a) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 33 I (1)(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule dismissed his appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the document Exhibit-28 was relied upon by the prosecution. However, no opportunity was granted to the applicant to explain it by way of a question to the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He vehemently argued that when the authorities visited the manufacturing unit, there was no stock or manufacturing process of the so-called ‘Gulvel Satva’. The medicine ‘Gulvel Satva’ was not spurious. He has pressed into service that since the material evidence/ circumstance was not brought to the notice of the applicant under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code the entire trial was vitiated. In the alternative, he prayed that Section 33 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act provides for passing the order less than one year for special reasons. He would argue that the Court, by way of adequate and special reasons, may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term less than one year and a fine less than Rs.50,000/- or three times whatever is more. In alternative, he prayed for extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. To bolster his argument, he relied on a few case laws that would be referred in later part of the judgment.

7. Learned APP has strongly opposed the application. She would submit that the letter Exhibit-28 was never impugned. It was an admission letter of the applicant that the so-called product seized was manufactured in his factory. Since it was admitted to the accused, no such question was required to be asked to him under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After seizing the manufacturing product from the medical shop, time was spent. So, probably in the meantime, the applicant might have stopped manufacturing ‘Gulvel Satwa’. There were no substantial grounds to warrant or interfere with the impugned judgment and order. There is no adequate or special reason to impose a penalty less than one year which was minimum punishment for the offence punishable under Section 33 EE (A) of the Drugs and Cosm