HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1612 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.181 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 Mr.B.Govind Singh, Drugs Inspector (PW.4) and two local mediators (PWs.2 and 3) raided the premises of Mr.M.Venkateswarlu at D.No.1-42, Ramapuram Village, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District and found that the accused stocked drugs for sale without holding any drug license. Then he conducted panchanama in the presence of the above said mediators and seized the drugs, which are in 23 varieties of physician samples (which are not for sale) and 27 varieties of sale packs. Then he conducted panchanama and seized the drugs. After conducting investigation, he filed complaint before the Court below and the same was took cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.181 of 2014.

6. On behalf of prosecution before the Court below, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.P1 to P19 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 4 and Exs.P1 to P19. 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. PWs.1 and 4 are the Investigating Officers. Hence, the Court below has rightly held in para No.13 of the impugned judgment, which reads as follows:

“In this case who are independent witnesses are turned hostile at the time of trial. Seizure of M.O.1 highly doubtful, moreover, PW.1 did not collect any document to show that whether the accused attended that shop or the accused is owner of the said shop. To show that he did not place single document to prove the above fact in this case. The Drugs Inspector not followed the rules prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. In this case PW.1 did not secure the presence of VRO and also did not secure the presence of neighbors to prove the fact that he is the owner of the said shop. PW.1 did not secure the ownership certificate of the said house.”

10. As rightly pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the prosecution has failed to collect any document to show that the accused is owner of the shop, in which the alleged stocks were seized,