Point of Law: Appeal against conviction - Many gaps in the prosecution story which remained unexplained. Thus, when two views appear to be possible, the view favourable to the accused has to be given precedence.

ORDER :

1. By way of instant Revision petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 28.08.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 56 of 2011, whereby judgment dated 29.8.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur in case No. 40-1 of 2008 convicting and sentencing petitioner for offences under Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 has been affirmed.

2. The Drug Inspector, Hamirpur, H.P. filed Complaint No. 40-1/2008 against petitioner alleging inter-alia that petitioner was found selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale allopathic drugs without valid license. As per Drug Inspector, he inspected the premises of petitioner on 04.04.2006 and found petitioner running a Clinic-cum- Medical Store under the name and style of M/s Thakur Clinic at Village and Post Office Balduhak, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. Large number of allopathic medicines were found in the business premises of petitioner being exhibited for sale. Petitioner could not produce valid license for such exhibition or sale of allopathic drugs. The Drug Inspector, seized all allopathic drugs found in the premises of the petitioner. Prepared its inventory in Form No.16 and sealed them in two separate cardboard cartons. Independent witnesses were associated, in whose presence seizure and sealing procedure was concluded. Later, petitioner was afforded an opportunity by Drug Inspector to submit the license, if any, to exhibit for sale allopathic drug, but the petitioner failed to do so, hence the complaint for commission of offences under Section 18(c) and 18-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

3. The Drug Inspector examined himself and three other witnesses to prove the allegation against the petitioner. CW-2 Chaman Lal, CW-3 Sukh Dev and CW-4 Rakesh Kumar, were examined as independent witnesses, but none of them supported the prosecution case. Petitioner was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner also examined one Subhash Chand as defence witness.

4. Learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner was also convicted for offence under Section 28 of the Act, ibid and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

5. Petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court by filing an appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, but remained unsuccessful. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide impugned judgment and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by learned Trial Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

7. Learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner on the sole testimony of the complainant/Drug Inspector. It was held that the petitioner had failed to prove any purpose or motive with the Drug Inspector to falsely implicate him, therefore, the testimony of the complainant/Drug Inspector could not be doubted.

8. Learned Appellate Court while affirming the findings returned by learned Trial Court further held that the independent witnesses, though had turned hostile, their testimonies could not be discarded as a whole as these witnesses had admitted their signatures on recovery memo Ext. CW-1/D and the sealed boxes Ext. CW-1/E-1 and E-2 and further had failed to render any plausible explanation for having signed such documents. Finding corroboration to the version of complainant from statements of witnesses CW-2 to CW-4 in aforesaid ma