JUDGMENT:

This is an Appeal preferred by the State against the impugned Judgment in Crl.A.No.146 of 2005 on the file of the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Guntur, wherein the Respondents/Accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 18(a)(vi) read with 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics

Act, 19401. 1 for short „Act‟.

2. The respondents herein faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 18(a)(vi) read with Section 27(d) and Section 18(A) read with Section 28 of theAct. The trial ended in conviction in C.C.No.388 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, vide Judgment dated 23.03.2005.

3. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and sentence, Accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2005 on the file of the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Guntur, Narsaraopet.The AppellateJudge partly allowed the appeal regarding the conviction under Section 18(a)(vi) read with Section 27(d) of the Act,and confirmed the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 18(A)read with Section 28 of the Act.

4. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the State preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the appellate Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective and thecomplainant has successfully established the guilt of the accused. It is also stated that the appellate Court erred in acquitting the accused on flimsy grounds without adverting to the material on record and that the reasons assigned for acquitting the accused for the offence under Section

18(a)(vi) read with 27(d) of the Act are unsustainable.

5. Heard Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Appellant and Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for Respondents/Accused.

6. Before going to discuss the points in this appeal, it is beneficial to extract the offence for which the accused were acquitted under Section 18(a)(vi) of the Act:-

18. Prohibition of manufacture and sale or certain drugs and cosmetics. – From such date as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf-

(a) manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale, or distribute…..

(vi) any drug or cosmetic in contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or any rule made there under;

7. To attract the offence under Section 18(a)(vi) of the Act referred supra, complainant has to establish that the subject drugs were kept in the medical shop of the accused for sale. The subject drugs in the present case are physician samples, which are not meant for sale. This appeal being an appeal against the acquittal of the accused, the Court must keep in mind the presumption of innocence is doubled in favour of the accused. The appellant Court has to examine the validity and correctness of the Judgment in the lines of any perversity. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mallappa & Ors.

v. State of Karnataka2, chalked out this view as follows;

“24. We may firstly discuss the position of law regarding the scope of intervention in a criminal appeal. For, that is the foundation of this challenge. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, unlessproven guilty. The presumption continues at all stages of the trial and

2[2024] 2 S.C.R. 288

finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the accused was not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal.

25. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal and there is no quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court