Back
High Court Of Orissa
K. P. MOHAPATRA
BICHITRANANDA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION 195 Of 1982
Decided On : 12/22/1986
DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT, 1940 - SECTION 27(A)(I) AND (II) - CONVICTION FOR STOCKING AND SELLING SUBSTANDARD DRUGS - LEGALITY OF COGNIZANCE, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, AND ADMISSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT ANALYST'S REPORT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 18(A)(I), (C), AND 27(A)(I), (II).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the power of attorney holder of his wife who had a valid license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, was convicted for stocking and selling substandard drugs in an unlicensed premises. The drugs were seized from his residential house during a joint raid by the Drugs Inspector and a Sub-Inspector of Police. One of the drugs, Zobromin Injection, was found to be of substandard quality by the Government Analyst.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, finding that the drugs were seized from his possession in his residential house, that he had no license for storage or sale of drugs in that premises, and that one of the drugs was of substandard quality. The court also held that the cognizance of the offenses was taken in accordance with the law, that the search and seizure were not illegal, and that the Government Analyst's report was admissible as evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the cognizance of the offenses was taken in accordance with the law? 2. Whether the search and seizure of the drugs were illegal? 3. Whether the Government Analyst's report was admissible as evidence? 4. Whether the petitioner's stocking of drugs in an unlicensed premises constituted an offense under the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the cognizance of the offenses was taken in accordance with the law, as the prosecution report was filed by the Inspector of Drugs and was before the court when cognizance was taken. The charge-sheet filed by the police was considered superfluous. 2. The court held that the search and seizure of the drugs were not illegal, as there is no prohibition in the Act or any other section prohibiting a Police Officer from entering into any premises for search and seizure of drugs. The court also noted that the search and seizure were conducted in the presence of the Inspector of Drugs. 3. The court held that the Government Analyst's report was admissible as evidence, as the sample of the drug was collected and seized in the presence of the Inspector of Drugs and sent to the Government Analyst for analysis. The court also noted that there was no finding that the rules with regard to packing and labeling of the sample were not followed. 4. The court held that the petitioner's stocking of drugs in an unlicensed premises constituted an offense under the Act, as it could be reasonably inferred that he had stocked the medicines for sale in his medicine shop. The court also noted that the quantity of drugs seized was enormous, which further supported the inference that they were stocked for sale.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.
( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under S. 27 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ).
( 2 ) PROSECUTION case relevant for disposal of the revision is stated below. The petitioner is the power of attorney holder of his wife Arunbala Swain who is the owner of Biraja Medical Agency, with a valid licence under the Act and the rules framed thereunder having the shop premises at Tala Telenga Bazar of Cuttack town. On 13-2-1978 the house of one Surendranath Sahu at Badambari was jointly raided and inspected by the Drugs Inspector (P. W. 1) and a Sub-Inspector of Police of Sadar Police Station (P. W. 3) and a huge quantity of drugs in the shape of patent medicines, vials of injections and ampules were seized from the said premises from the possession of the petitioner in the presence of the witnesses as per seizure list (Ext. 1 ). The petitioner had no licence under the Act and the rules framed thereunder either for storage or for storage for sale of the drugs in the said premises which had been rented out to him for the purpose of residence. Some of the drugs were suspected to be substandard and so out of them Zobromin Injection of vitamin B1, B6 and B12 was sent to the Government Analyst who in Ext. 6 reported that the drug was not of standard and acceptable quality because the red liquid in rubber capped glass vial contained suspended particles visible in ordinary daylight with unaided eyes. Therefore, P. W. 3 submitted a charge-sheet dated 31-7-1978 against the petitioner for having committed offences under S. 27 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act enclosing a prosecution report signed by P. W. 1 on 27-7-1978 and received at the police station on 31-7-1978 against the petitioner for having committed the aforesaid offences.
( 3 ) THE petitioner in his defence raised the plea that the drugs were kept at the shop premises in Tala Telenga Bazar and were not seized from his possession in his residential house at Badambari. The raiding party took the drugs and himself to the police station. He had no knowledge that any drug was of substandard quality.
( 4 ) THE charge against the petitioner runs as follows :"that you on or about the 13th day of Feb. 1978 at Badambadi, under Madhupatna Police-station, Cuttack, were found to have stored for sale the drugs which were not of standard quality and were stocked in an unlicenced premises in contravention of S. 18 (a) (i) and (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 27 (a) (i) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and within my cognizance. "both the learned courts below concurrently found that the drugs as per seizure-list (Ext. 1) were seized from the residence of the petitioner at Badambari which he had taken on rent from one Surendranath Sahu. For storage of drugs in the said premises he had no valid licence under the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The drugs seized from his possession had been stocked for sale. One of the drugs namely, Zobromin was found to be of substandard quality. Therefore, the petitioner contravened the provisions of S. 18 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act and accordingly he was convicted thereunder and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months.
( 5 ) 1 have carefully considered the materials available on record. It was not disputed that the petitioner had taken the house of Surendranath Sahu at Badambari on rent and was living there. According to his defence, the medicines were not seized from the aforesaid residential premises but were taken from the shop premises at Tala Telenga Bazar. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 who were associated with the search and seizure and that of P. W. 2 who was an attes
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
