JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.12.2007, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan in Criminal Case No. 2884/2001, for the offences punishable under Sections 18(C), 18(A)(1), 18(A)(6) and 18(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the lower Court is that the Drug Inspector, Shri Pradip Govindlal Doshi, received secret information that the respondent was selling Oxitocin Injections without any licence or permission. Acting on this information, a raid was conducted at the premises of the respondent, M/s. Bhagwati Book Stores, near Bhagwada Darwaja, Patan, where the respondent was found in possession of injections. The seized samples were sent for analysis, and as per the report of the Public Analyst, the injections were found to be substandard. The respondent failed to produce any valid licence, bills, or vouchers for the said drugs, and therefore, the complaint was lodged against the respondent-accused.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 3 witnesses and also produced 16 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:

Oral evidences

Documentary evidences

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned APP for the appellant – State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It i