IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-09-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CRL MP NO. 19080 OF 2023

1. N.Nizamudeen Proprietor of M/s. Family Medicals, NO.104/45-B, Colony Junction Road, K Theatre Road, Krishnagiri.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. State Rep By P.Ramakrishnan, M.Pharm, Senior drugs Inspector and Dharmapuri range (i/c) , Office of the Assistant Director of Drugs Control,Salem Zone, Salem.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER To set aside the sentence dated 1.11.2023 imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishanagiri in Crl.A.NO.1/2021 and sentence dated 8.12.2020 imposed by the Judicial Magistrate , Krishnagiri in STC.NO. 435/2013.

For Petitioner(s): M/s. N.Sivaprakash N.Manikandan K.Sudha K.Kunjalambikai For Respondent(s): Dr.C.E. Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the sentence dated

1.11.2023 imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishanagiri in Crl.A.NO.1/2021 and sentence dated 8.12.2020 imposed by the Judicial Magistrate , Krishnagiri in STC.NO. 435/2013.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.12.2010, under the instruction from the Assistance Director of Drugs Control, Salem Zone, the Drugs Inspector, Namakkal Range inspected the premises of M/s. Family Medicals, 104/45B Colony Junction Road, K. Theatre Road, Krishnagiri dated 02.06.2003 valid upto 31.12.2012. At the time of inspection, the respondent found that they have sold 300 tablets of Anxinil 00.5 Batch No. 10054NI, 8x100 ml of Bricanil Syrup Batch No. BCK 017, 94 tablest of Ease 0.5 mg batch No. EPF 102 and 184 tablets of Anxil 0.5 batch No. ABD0049 without raising any cash/credit bills and sold the above drugs without proper prescription of the registered medical practitioner. Hence, they have contravened, Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetice Act 1940 r/w R. 65(4)(3)(i) & 65(9)(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945( for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred as ''Act'') for having sold the above said drugs without raising any cash/credit bills and without proper prescription of the registered medical practitioner. Susequently, the Drug Inspector, Namakkal Range has issued a spot memo under Section 22 (1)(cca) of the ''Act'' required to produce particulars pertaining to above said contravention and the same was anknowleged by the proprietor. After completing due procedures, the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Krishnagiri, taken the case on file. On the side of the petitioner P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 were marked. There is no witness was examined and no documents were marked.

3. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial court found the accused guilty of offence 18 (c ) r/w Rules 65(4)(3)(i) & 65(9)(a) and 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and fined Rs.20,000/-, in default, Simple Imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the judgement, the appellant preferred the appeal before Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, in Crl.A No. 1 of 2021, by judgement dated 01.11.2023, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant preferred this Revision case.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts below had failed to take note of the fact that at the time of inspection of the bills and prescriptions of the petitioner, the respondent did not do the inspection in the presence of any independent witness. Further, it failed to take note that the petitioner was not caught red handed at the time of selling medicines without prescription and bills. Further, when it disbelieved the case of the respondent that the petitioner sold the medicine without prescriptions, it ought to have disbelieved the case of the respondent that the medicine were sold without bills as no evidence has been placed to show that the same were sold without bills when more particularly the respondent did not catch hold of the petit