Back
2023 Supreme(J&K) 248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
State of J&K through Drug Inspector Shopian - Petitioner
Versus
Mohammad Ashraf Shah and Anr. - Respondents
Crl.A. (AS) No. 5 of 2019
Decided On : 10-10-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG with Ms. Ruheela Khan, Assisting Counsel.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of thorough investigation and the need for proper evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Drug Inspector - Drugs & Cosmetics Act - 18(c), 32(i), 27(b)(ii) - The court discussed the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, particularly focusing on the requirement of proof of ownership of the shop, admissibility of statements, and the need for thorough investigation to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The Drug Inspector inspected a medical store and accused the proprietor and salesman of selling drugs without proper documentation. The trial court found discrepancies in the evidence and acquitted the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove ownership of the shop and raised doubts about the admissibility of certain statements and the lack of thorough investigation.
Issues: Proof of ownership, admissibility of statements, thorough investigation
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for thorough investigation and proper evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal by the State was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision to acquit the accused.
ORDER :
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant State against the order dated 28.11.2015 passed by the court of learned Principal District & Sessions, Judge, Shopian, in Complaint No. 01/Comp titled “State through Drug Inspector Vs. Mohd Ashraf Shah and another” passed in complaint u/s 18 (c) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with 32 (i) 27 (b) (ii). Initially the compliant was registered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shopian and as the offences were exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions.
2. The facts of the case as put forth by the complainant, in brief, are as follows:
3. The complainant is the Drug Inspector who, on a routine inspection of Shopian area has inspected the premises which was running under the name and style M/S Tabish Medical Store situated at Arhama Shopian and found that one Mohammad Ashraf Shah resident of Bongam is the proprietor and Arshid Ahmad lone is the salesman of the said premises and they have been indulging in the stocking, exhibiting for sale and selling drugs and medicines by way of retail. It is further alleged that the accused Mohd Ashraf Shah (hereinafter referred as A1) has been directed to furnish the documents required by the complainant, but he failed to do so and accordingly, Drugs alongwith bills were seized on 20.12.2011. Sanction for prosecution of the accused persons was obtained from Controller Drugs and Food Control Organization vide letter No. DF/DRUGS/479/0818 dated 03.01.2012 and, thereafter, the complaint was filed to take action against the accused persons u/s 27 (b) (ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940. Thereafter, the complainant was directed to produce his witness. Besides himself, he has produced only one other witness. The right of adducing evidence of the prosecution was closed on 03.02.2014. The statement of the accused persons have been recorded on 18.07.2014 and, thereafter, they were given an opportunity to adduce evidence in defence.
4. The Gist of the statement of the witnesses are as under:-
P.W.1 Bilal Ahmad Rather (Drug Inspector) on 20.12.2011, who went to Tabish Medical Store, Arhama Shopian and examine the shop. He found the salesman Arshid Ahad there. The owner of the shop was not present there at that time. The witness took some items from the shop and also seized some bills. The bills that were seized were in the name of Tabish Medical Store. The medicines which were present there were taken by the Drug Inspector which comprised of Injections and other medicines.
5. On cross examination P.W.1 says the shop which the witness has examined is being run since a long time. He, however, says that he did not take any photographs of the shop while making the seizure. He also says that many people assembled on the spot but none of them came forward to record their statements. His knowledge that A1 is the owner of the shop was on the basis of the statement made by the salesman Arshad Ahad (hereinafter referred as A2). In other words, the witness did not have any independent source of information by way of any document to show that A1 was the proprietor of the shop. The witness further states that he did not seize any ledger from the shop concerned but bills have been seized. It is relevant to state here that the nature of the bills have not been described by the witness. The witness further states that A1 is having licenses to rune other medical shop and that he is running the medical shop in question and, on account of that, P.W.1 knows A1 personally. He further states the license that has been given to A1 for runninga shop outside the hospital and that the name of the shop is Amir Medical Store and that A1 is the owner of the that shop as well, for which he has license for selling medicines from the said shop.
6. P.W.2 Ashiq Hussain Bhat Drug Inspector Shopian, who has deposed that the witness is the Drug Inspector and that his work is to check the markets as to whether Drug Stores a
