The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of additional evidence for the just decision of the case and to secure ends of justice under Section 391 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. - The petitioner is seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide which the application filed by petitioner/ accused under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence in Criminal Appeal No. CRA/156/2016 has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 4.7.2006, shop No.2 adjoining M/s Chalana Medical Agencies near Bus Stand Jalalabad District Ferozepur was inspected by Rajesh Suri the then Drug Inspector along with Amit Duggal Drug Inspector Jalandhar and Jitender Singh Drug Inspector Bathinda and petitioner/accused was found stocking many types of allopaethic drugs for the purpose of sale and distribution without having any valid drug sale license or registered Medical Practitioner Certificate, as required under law. After following the proper procedure, State through Drugs Inspector Ferozepur filed complaint under Section 18(c) read with Rule 62 and Section 18-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and on conclusion of trial petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment under Section 27(b) (ii) for contravention of Section 18(c) and 18(A) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by the Court of ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur vide judgment and order dated 25.7.2016.

3. Being aggrieved petitioner/accused has filed criminal appeal which is pending in the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and in the said appeal petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C to tender the following documents by way of additional evidence:-

'(i) Original bill No.267 Book No.6 dated 12.6.2006 issued by M/s Radhika Medicos.

(ii) Bill No.252 dated 14.6.2006 issued by kalbro.

(iii) Bill No.12962 dated 19.5.2006 issued by York's Pharma.

(iv) Bill No.2300 dated 30.6.2006 issued by Suresh Medical Agency.

(v) Bill No.193 dated 1.7.2006 issued by Royson Sales Corporation.

(vi) Bill No.341 dated 3.7.2006 issued by M/s Pace Pharma.

(vii) Bill No.000259 dated 16.6.2006 issued by R.P. Dichech Pvt. Ltd.

(viii) Bill No.403 dated 1.7.2006 issued by Chalana Medicos.

(ix) Bill No.083 dated 1.7.2006 issued by kansal Medicine Traders."

4. The said application was contested by the State and dismissed by the Ld. Appellate Court vide order dated 6.8.2018, Annexure P-1 with following observations:-

'Through the application for additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.PC, the appellant seeks to bring on record certain bills to prove the fact that the appellant is not occupying shop No.3 (godown) as alleged by the complainant and the same is not in his possession and is in possession of Ashok Kumar son of Mukand Lal under Municipal Committee under the record of the committee and that he purchased the medicines so recovered through these bills. Perusal of the file of the lower court would reveal that photostat copies of the documents which are now sought to be brought on record at the appellate stage were there on the judicial record of the lower court when the trial was in progress. The accused had opportunity to bring on record the said documents at that stage of leading defence evidence, but he did not do so. The documents sought to be brought on record are defence taken by the accused. Hence, it was for him to bring on record all the documents to prove his defence when sufficient opportunities were given. Hence, the application cannot be allowed at this stage and the same is dismissed."

5. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present petition to challenge the order dated 6.8.2018, Annexure P-1.

6. Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 6.9.2018 and in the meantime passing of final order by the Appellate Court was stayed.

7. The State has filed the reply by way of affidavit of Omkar Singh, Drugs Control Officer, Fazilka, which was taken on record.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

8. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present