IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.04.2024 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.A.No.134 of 2021 State rep. by, The Drugs Inspector, Gobichettipalayam Range, O/o. Drugs Inspector, 102, Sheik Dawood Street, Erode. ...Appellant Vs.

P.Revathi ...Respondent Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(i) of Criminal Procedure Code to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 21.02.2020 in S.T.C.No.1031 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathyamangalam, Erode District and convict the respondent/accused for the charges framed against her.

For Appellant : Ms.G.V.Kasthuri Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent : M/s.S.Parthasarathy

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathyamangalam, Erode District, in S.T.C.No.1031 of 2018 dated 21.02.2020.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.06.2017, the Drug Inspector/complainant inspected the respondent's medical shop running in the name and style of M/s. Sri Sivasakthi Medicals, at that time, though the respondent, Proprietrix of the said medical shop was present, however, the endorsed Regd. Pharmacist of the said concern was not present. Thereby, the complainant issued memo to the Proprietrix and obtained acknowledgment. In response to the memo, the respondent submitted reply and also produced the license as well as the purchase and sales bills and register. Upon perusal of the same, it was found that, the Prescription register was not signed by the Endorsed Pharmacist from Bill No.3253 dated 19.06.2017 to Bill No.3306 dated 27.06.2017 and drugs were sold without any supervision of the Endorsed Pharmacist and without any sales bills. Since, the above said contravention attracts the provisions of Section 21 and 22 (2A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 32 of the said Act before the trial court in STC.No.1031 of 2018. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P.11. After adjudication, the trial court, vide impugned judgment dismissed the said complaint and acquitted the respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/complainant has come up with this Appeal.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant submitted that, the trail court had dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant solely on the ground that, the appellant is not a duly appointed Drug Inspector and no authorisation was given by the State Government by issuing notification. However, it is pertinent to note that, the appellant specifically raised a plea in the ground by pointing out that the trial court had failed to see that the notification was issued under Section 21 of the said Act, vide G.O.(4D).No.20 Health and Family Welfare (M1) dated 12.07.2013. Further, in order to disprove the case of the prosecution, no documentary or oral evidence has been adduced by the respondent/accused. However, without considering any of the said facts, the trial court had dismissed the compliant filed by the appellant and acquitted the respondent /accused, which is not sustainable. Accordingly, the order of the trial court has to necessarily be interfered with.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, though the appellant stated that he is authorised by the State Government as per G.O.(4D).No.20 Health and Family Welfare (M1) dated 12.07.2013, however the same was neither marked before the trial court nor before this Court. Hence, in the absence of any notification as provided under Section 21 of the said Act, authorising the complainant as Drug Inspector, the trial court had rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant, which is perfectly in order and the same does not warrants interference of this Court. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that in the absence of any authorisation, which affects the jurisdiction of the Drug Inspector, which was