IMPORTANT POINT
When there was no evidence to show that petitioner-accused had stocked drugs in his house for sale without licence proving of mere possession was not sufficient to sustain conviction.

ORDER

G. Yethirajulu, J. - This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by A-2 in C.C. No. 190 of 1995 on the file to the judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet, Medak District.

2. A-2 and himself were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 27(b) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’). After recording the evidence, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the alleged offences against both the accused are proved. Accordingly, they were convicted for the offence under Section 27(b) of the Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and they were also convicted for the offence under Section 28 of the Act and sentenced each of them to undergo R-1 for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer S.I. for two months under the each count. The accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court dated 28-3-1998, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1988 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fact Track Court), Medak at Sangareddy. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the appeal acquitted A-1 and confirmed the conviction of A-2 and the sentence imposed thereon by the Trial Court for the alleged offences A-2, being aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate Court, preferred the present revision challenging its validity and legality.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A-2 submitted that a drug licence, which was not in force, was seized from the house of A-2 and the licence was in the name of A-1 who is no other than his brother. The house does not belong to him and the drugs also belong to his brother. He is not indulging in any sale of any of the drugs kept in his house. His brother, A-1 is also residing in the same house. There was no board exhibited to indicate that the drugs were sold at that house. Therefore, the appellate Court erred in holding that A-2 along with A-1 was responsible for the commission of offence and the Appellate Court while acquitting A-1, erroneously confirmed the conviction of A-2. Therefore, the conviction of A-2 is liable to be set aside.

4. Section 27 of the Act reads as follows:

“27.Penalty for manufacture sale etc. of drugs in contravention of this Chapter. - Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks in exhibits or offers for sale of distributes, -

(a)any drug deemed to be adulterated under Section 17-A or spurious under Section 17-B or which when used by any person for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, or prevention of any disease or disorder is likely to cause his death or is likely to cause such harm on his body as would amount to grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), solely an account of such drug being adulterated or spurious or not of standard quality, as the case may be, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to a term of life and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees:

(b)any drug -

(i)deemed to be adulterated under Section 17-A, but not being a drug referred to in clause (a), or

(ii)without a valid licence as required under clause (c) of Section 18,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees:

provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year and of fine of less than five thousand rupees;

(c)any drug deemed to be spurious under Section 17-B, but not being a drug referred to in clause (a) shall be punishable with imprisonment of a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years and with fine which s