SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(Pat) 89

PATNA HIGH COURT
K.Sahai and R.K.Choudhary JJ.
Ramlagan Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Revision No. 625 of 1956 ;
Decided On : MAY 16, 1958

Judicial notice can be taken of the appointment of an Inspector of Drugs under the Drugs Act, 1940, if the fact of his appointment is notified in the official Gazette.

Headnote:

DRUGS ACT, 1940 - SEC. 32(1), 21(1) - APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTOR - JUDICIAL NOTICE OF OFFICIAL GAZETTE - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SEC. 57(1), (7) - CONVICTION FOR STOCKING QUININE BI HYDRO CHLORIDE FOR SALE - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner was convicted under Sec. 27 of the Drugs Act, 1940, for contravention of Clauses (a) (ii) and (c) of Sec. 18 of the same Act for stocking quinine bi hydro chloride for sale without being an authorized dealer.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner's trial was not vitiated due to the absence of evidence on record regarding the appointment of the Inspector of Drugs, as judicial notice could be taken of the official Gazette notification appointing the Inspector.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's trial was vitiated due to the absence of evidence on record regarding the appointment of the Inspector of Drugs? 2. Whether the finding that the petitioner had stocked the ampules of quinine bi hydro chloride for sale was based on adequate materials?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Sec. 32(1) of the Drugs Act, 1940, only an Inspector appointed by the State Government can launch a prosecution. However, under Sec. 57(7) of the Evidence Act, 1872, judicial notice has to be taken of the office occupied by a particular individual if the fact of his appointment is notified in the official Gazette. 2. The court found that the Inspector of Drugs who instituted the prosecution was duly appointed as per the notifications published in the Bihar Gazette, and therefore, the petitioner's trial was not vitiated. 3. The court also found that the finding that the petitioner had stocked the ampules of quinine bi hydro chloride for sale was justified based on the circumstances that all the ampules were found on the racks in his shop where he stocked other medicines for sale and that no one can ordinarily be expected to keep so many ampules for personal use.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for interference with his conviction and sentence.

Judgment

K.Sahai, J.

1. The petitioner has been convicted under Sec.27 of the Drugs Act, 1940, for contravention of Clauses (a) (ii) and (c) of Sec.18 of the same Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of a homeopathic medicine shop known as Sathi Homeo Laboratory which is situated in Mohalla Bakerganj of Laheriasarai town. The prosecution case is that Shyam Sundar Prasad (P. W. 2), who was then the Inspector of Drugs, Tirhut Division, visited the petitioners shop on the 12th March, 1955 and found 44 ampules o£ quinine bi hydro-chloride, 33 of them being with labels and 11 without labels. Shyam Sundar Prasad was transferred and Vishwanath Prasad Srivastava (P. W. 1) was appointed as Inspector of Drugs, Tirhut Division, in May 1954. He submitted a complaint dated the 14th April, 1955, which was received by the Sub-divisional Magistrate concerned on the 4th May, 1955. In due course, the petitioner was put upon his trial with the result which I have already mentioned.

3. The first point which Mr. Rameshwar Choudhary has taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioners trial must be held to be vitiated because an Inspector of Drugs alone can institute a prosecution under the Act and there is no material on the record to show that Vishwanath Prasad Srivastava (P. W. 1) was duly appointed as an Inspector. He has also contended that nothing outside the record can be looked into for this purpose. In support of these contentions, he has drawn our attention to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Abdul Hamid V/s. The State, 1955 BLJR 40.

4. Sub-section (1) of Sec.32 of the Drugs Act provides that no prosecution under Chapter JV of the Act shall be instituted except by an Inspector. Section 21 (1) of the same Act lays down:-

-

"(1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Inspectors for the purposes of this Chapter within such local limits as it may assign to them respectively."

There is a proviso to this sub-section, but that is irrelevant for the purposes of this case. The effect of these provisions is that no one except an Inspector appointed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette can launch a prosecution under the Drugs Act. In Abdul Hamids case, 1955 BLJR 40, the learned Advocate for the State conceded that there was no evidence on the record to prove that Shyam Sundar Prasad, who had instituted the prosecution, had in fact been notified by the State Government to be an Inspector of Drugs. It further appears that the relevant notification in the Biliar Gazette was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge nor was he invited to take it into consideration on this point. The case is, therefore, no authority for the proposition contended for by Mr. Rameshwar Choudhary that this Court cannot take into consideration the Biliar Gazette at this stage in order to ascertain whether Vishwanath Prasad Srivastava (P. W. 1) was an Inspector appointed by the Government on the date on which ho instituted the prosecution.

5. Sec. 57 of the Evidence Act provides for judicial notice being taken of some facts. Under Sub-section (1) Judicial notice has to be taken of all laws in force in the territory of India. It can hardly be argued that the law, which is in question in a particular case, should be put in evidence as an exhibit on the records of that case. Sub-section (7) reads:-

-

"7. The accession to office, names, titles, functions and signatures of the persons filling for the time being any public office in any State, if the fact of their appointment to such office is notified in any official Gazette."

Under this sub-section, Judicial notice has to be taken of the office occupied by a particular individual if the fact of his appointment is notified in the official Gazette.





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top