IMPORTANT POINT
The court has the discretion to grant probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, taking into account the nature of the offence and the absence of prior criminal record.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has filed the present criminal appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 26.04.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 1/2012 whereby, the trial court while convicting the present appellant for offence under Section 27(b)(ii), 27(3) & 28-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, granted benefit probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and directed the petitioner to deposit the litigation expenses in the sum of Rs.1.40 lacs.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complainant against the appellant and firm M/s Sri Karni Medical Agency stating therein that on the basis of secret information on 02.02.2011, they caught a person on the way towards Sahazipura Dablirathan Road and from his possession, cough syrup was recovered in carton for which the persons did not have the bill or effective license.

3. On the basis of the complaint, the court took cognizance against the appellant and framed charges against the appellant for offence under Section 28-a of Drugs and Cosmetics Act due to violation of Section 18/C, 27(b)(ii), 27(d) & Rule 65(5)(6) R/w Section 18/C & under Section 27(d), 18-B of Drugs and Cosmetics.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses and exhibited various documents. The statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C but no witness was examined in defence.

5. After conclusion of trial, the court below convicted the appellant vide judgment dated 26.04.2018, but granted benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and directed the appellant to deposit Rs.1.40 lacs as litigation expenses.

6. Counsel for the complainant petitioner submits that although the court below granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act but on the other hand, imposed a huge fine of Rs.1.40 lacs. It is argued that the appellant was having the license as wholeseller of medicine and therefore, he has been falsely implicated only on the ground of not carrying valid license at the time of alleged recovery, although the appellant had produced the bill in the name and style of M/sNew Godara Medical store. It is further argued that there are major contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies in the statement of prosecution witnesses who are mostly police officials Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the accused may be adequately punished for the alleged offences.

7. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the material on record.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer made by the appellant and argued that the trial court after taking into consideration the nature of offence, has rightly convicted the appellant and imposed the fine which does not call for any interference.

9. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has convicted the appellant on the basis of statement of the witnesses so also other documents. The courts below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. However, looking to the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the respondents, the court has granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

10. After considering the evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error in convicting the accused appellant and granting benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.

12. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.