HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1535 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

This criminal appeal has been filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.11.2014 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar in C.C. No.180 of 2014, whereunder respondent/accused was acquitted for the offences under Sections 27(b)(ii), 28 and 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State.

3. No representation on behalf of respondent either physical mode or virtual mode.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 19.11.2013 the complainant-Drugs Inspector along with two local mediators (LWs.2 and 3) raided the premises of M/s. Sree Rama First Aid Centre situated at Gramapanchayat Road, Ramapuram Village, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District and found that the accused stocked Allopathic drugs for sale without holding any drug license. Then he conducted panchanama in the presence of the above said mediators and seized the drugs mentioned in Form- 17 and 17A. He also found a prescription pad at the premises. He tried to pay the amount to the accused towards the cost of tablets picked for analysis for which the accused refused. He procured the copy of household card of accused, SSC Certificate of accused and electricity bill of the building. On 20.11.2013 the complainant sent one portion of sealed ZOFTAX-O 200 tablets to the Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Hyderabad, for analysis. After receipt of Analytical report and after conducting investigation, he filed complaint before the Court below and the same was took cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.180 of 2014.

6. On behalf of prosecution before the Court below, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Ex.P1 to P29 and M.O.1 were marked. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties, acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences.

7. Aggrieved by the above said judgment, the State has filed the present Appeal.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Magistrate without properly considering the oral and documentary evidence on record erroneously acquitted the accused, though the prosecution established the offence against the accused by examining PWs.1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P29.

PW.1 in his evidence specifically stated that the alleged drug stocks were in possession of the accused as on the date of alleged incident. However, the learned Magistrate did not consider the evidence of PW.1 and erroneously acquitted the accused. The impugned judgment passed by the Court below is contrary to the settled principles of law. Hence, prays to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Court below and convict the accused for the offences with which he was charged.

9. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that PWs.2 and 3, who are independent witnesses acted as panch witnesses, did not support the case of prosecution. The record further reveals that though the prosecution examined the owner of the house bearing No.2-102/1 as PW.4, it failed to establish that the alleged shop situated in the house belongs to the accused. PW.4, Panchayat Secretary, in his evidence, specifically stated that he does not know who is the tenant of the said house and he issued Ex.P23 alleging that the house in question belongs to one Shivangula Annapurna, but she was not examined by the prosecution. PW.5, who is the building owner, deposed that he does not know the accused and he never addressed any letter to the Drugs Inspector. It is already stated supra PWs.2 to 5 did