The court emphasized the importance of awareness of accusations and the exercise of discretion in imposing sentences based on the circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

KULDIP SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner has assailed judgment dated 25.2.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Appeal No. 6-NL/10 of 2004, affirming judgment dated 24.4.2004 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh in Case No. 7/3 of 2002 convicting the petitioner and sentencing him u/s 27(b)(ii) for fifteen days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2500/-, u/s 28, fine of Rs. 1000/- under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short Act). The facts in brief are that Drugs Inspector, Solan filed a complaint against the petitioner stating therein that on 6.11.2001 the complainant and Sher Singh Thakur were on joint official tour to Baddi. The complainant found petitioner stocking and distributing drugs to the Anil Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Anil Medicos, Sai Road, Baddi by vehicle bearing No. CH-03D-9095 without any drug licence as required under the Act read with Rules under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short Rules). The petitioner did not disclose from where he had acquired drugs found in his possession.

2. The Drug Inspector seized the drugs in presence of witnesses Chaman Lal, Anil and Sunil Kumar. The sampling and sealing were done on the spot. The sample was sent to Government Analyst, Kandaghat. On testing Government Analyst submitted report, the sample was found to be drug as per the claim made on the label. It has been stated in the complaint that petitioner has contravened Section 18(C), Section 18A of the Act by stocking and distributing, offering for sale drug without any valid drug licence and by not disclosing information as required from him which is punishable u/s 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Act.

3. The petitioner was summoned. The notice of accusation was put to petitioner u/s 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined six witnesses and produced some documents. The statement of petitioner was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution case. He has stated that at the relevant time arguments took place between Drug Inspector and petitioner, as a result of which the Drug Inspector has falsely implicated the petitioner in the case. The petitioner examined two witnesses in defence. On conclusion of trial, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed above. The appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan on 25.2.2006, hence revision.

4. Heard and perused the record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that proper notice of accusation was not put to the petitioner that petitioner had no licence to distribute the drugs from a vehicle. In absence of such accusation the learned Magistrate has erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also repeated the same mistake by affirming the judgment dated 24.4.2004 of the learned Magistrate.

5. The notice of accusation was put to the petitioner on 19.12.2002 stating therein that on 6.11.2001 at Baddi he was found in possession of drug named Oral Suspn ROSCILLIN-AMX without a valid licence as required u/s 18(C) of the Act and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 27(b)(ii) of the Act. It was also put to the petitioner that he had failed to disclose to the Drugs Inspector from where he had purchased the drug named Oral Suspn ROSCILLIN-AMX as required u/s 18(A) of the Act and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 28 of the Act.

6. In para-2 of the complaint it has been stated that complainant found petitioner stocking and distributing the drug to proprietor Anil Kumar of M/s. Anil Medicos by a vehicle bearing No. CH-03D-9095 without any drug licence to distribute the drugs on Form-20BB or Form-21BB as required under the Act. The Rule 62D provides licence to sell drugs by wholesale or distribute drugs from a motor vehicle. The petitioner thus was aware of the allegation