Point of Law: As per proviso to Section 27(b)(ii) of Act, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in judgment, Court may impose sentence of imprisonment for a term less than one year.

JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.

1. Learned Trial Court on 23.06.2012 convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short ‘the Act’). The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Petitioner’s appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.06.2012 and 29.06.2012, respectively, was dismissed by the learned 1st Appellate Court on 03.05.2019. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has assailed the above two judgments in the instant revision petition.

2. Facts in nutshell are that:

(i) On 30.12.2004, the Drug Inspector in performance of his official duties, inspected premises of M/s Bhardwaj Clinic, Fatehpur, District Kangra. The inspection was carried out in presence of police official HHC Bishamber Singh (PW-2), Parkash Chand-Employee in the office of Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Kangra at Dharamshala (PW-3), Satish Singh (PW-1) and Mukesh Kumar-present there at the relevant time. The petitioner was found present in the clinic at that time. He represented himself to be the proprietor thereof.

During inspection, several allopathic drugs were found to have been stocked for sale in the clinic. The petitioner could not produce Drugs Licence to stock allopathic drugs for sale. Petitioner also could not produce any valid Registered Medical Practitioner Certificate to practice allopathic system of medicine. The allopathic drugs found in the clinic were seized and collected in the box named as Fatehpur-I (Ext. P). The box was sealed with seal ‘NK’. Entry of the drugs was made in Form No. 16 (Ext. PW-4/B). The petitioner appended his signatures on the aforesaid exhibits. A copy of Form No. 16 signed by the witnesses, the complainant and the petitioner was also given to the petitioner/accused. After completing the codal formalities, the complaint under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act was lodged.

(ii) Learned Trial Court framed notice of accusation against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(iii) The complainant examined himself as PW-4, Parkash Chand (Employee of CMO Office, Kangra at Dharamshala) as PW-3, HHC Bishamber Singh as PW-2 and Satish Singh (independent witness) as PW-1. Documentary evidence was also adduced.

(iv) The petitioner/accused examined his father - Sh. Kishan Chand as DW-1. Certificate of practicing as Registered Medical Practitioner statedly issued in favour of petitioner’s father alongwith receipts of alleged renewal of this Medical Practitioner Certificate, were produced as Ext. DW1/B to Ext. DW1/D.

(v) Learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties, held that the complainant had succeeded in establishing guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. The petitioner was accordingly convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act in terms of the judgment dated 23.06.2012 and vide order dated 29.06.2012, was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default clause. As observed earlier, learned 1st Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 03.05.2019.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below are against the facts and applicable legal position. That PW-2 to PW-4 were interested witnesses and had conspired against the petitioner. PW-3 in his cross-examination, specifically stated that before entering the clinic of the petitioner, the inspecting t