Timely analysis and proper handling of drug samples are crucial; delays and procedural violations invalidate prosecution cases.

JUDGMENT :

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. Heard Ms. Vrishali Raje, learned Advocate appearing for the Applicants and Dr. Krishnaiyer, learned APP for the State-Respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision Application is filed by Original Accused No.1 and Accused No.8 taking exception to the twin judgments of conviction and sentence dated 26.4.2001 passed by the Trial Court and dated 19.7.2002 passed by the Sessions Court. Originally there were ten accused in the case. Indictment has been translated into conviction and sentence against Accused Nos. 1 and 8 only. Prosecution is alleged for offences punishable under the provisions of Section 18(a) (i) r/w. Section 17(b) and punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short "the said Act") under Rule 19 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. Complaint was filed by the Drug Inspector against four persons initially viz. Shri P.R. Naik, Proprietor of M/s. Weldon Pharmaceuticals (Accused No.1), Mr. M.J. Brahmabhatt (Accused No.8), Mrs. Ranikumar (Accused No.9) and M/s. Healer (India) Laboratories (Accused No.10) on the above charges.

3. By judgment dated 26.4.2001, appended at Exhibit 'A' page No.23, Trial Court convicted Accused No.1 Mr. P.R. Naik, Accused No.8 Mr. M.J. Brahmbhatt and Accused No.9 Mrs. Ranikumar having found them guilty of the aforesaid offences and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In so far as Accused No.10- M/s. Healer (India) Laboratories is concerned, it was awarded sentence of fine of Rs.1000/- only. Being aggrieved with the above conviction, the convicted accused filed two separate Criminal Appeals viz. Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2001 filed by Mrs. Ranikumar-Accused No.9 and Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2001 filed by Mr. P.R. Naik (Accused No.1) and Mr. M.J. Brahmabhatt (Accused No.8) before the Sessions Court. Both appeals were decided by a common judgment dated 19.7.2002, whereby Accused No.8 Mrs. Ranikumar was acquitted and her Appeal came to be allowed. Appeal filed by Mr. P.R. Naik-Accused No.1 and Mr. M.J. Brahmabhatt - Accused No. 8 was dismissed thereby upholding their conviction.

4. At this stage, it needs to be mentioned that Mrs. Ranikumar - Accused No.10 was employed as Quality Consultant by M/s. Healer (India) Laboratories in their laboratory whereas, Mr. M.J. Brahmabhatt was employed as Production Chemist in the same laboratory. In the above backdrop, the facts of the case, which are in a narrow compass, need to be appreciated in the Revision before this Court. This Court is aware of its revisional powers under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. in as much as the evidence on record cannot be re-appreciated by the Court and this Court will have to consider the validity, legality and propriety of the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. Though there are concurrent judgments passed, however, to determine the case and plea of the Revision Applicants to that extent the Court will have to go into the relevant evidence considered by the Courts below. Prosecution has led evidence of four witnesses in the present case. Out of which the evidence and more particularly cross examination of three witnesses viz. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 is relevant, rather directly relevant for considering the present Revision Application.

5. Briefly stated, Accused No. 1 Mr.P.R. Naik is the Proprietor of M/s. Weldon Pharmaceuticals situated at 8-B, Owner's Colony, Cittaranjan Nagar, Vidyavihar (East), Mumbai - 400 077. He hel