JUDGMENT : A.N. Surti, J. Upon reading an anonymous letter addressed to the Honourable the Chief justice, it was decided to number the said letter as a revisional application in exercise of suo motu revision jurisdiction of the High Court. Rule was issued and the matter is placed before me for disposal. In the instant case, for the commission of offences under Sections 18(c), 18(a)(i) and 18(a)(iia) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced opponent No. 1 (Original accused No. 1) to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under section 27 read with section 34 of the said Act. The learned Magistrate also found accused No. 4, M/s. Herna Laboratories, guilty of the aforesaid offences under section 18(c), 18(a)(iia) and I8(a)(i) of the same Act and for each of the above offences convicted and sentenced to pay s fine of Rs. 500/- under section 27 read with section 34 of the Act. 2. A few relevant facts giving rise to the present suo mom revision application may be stated in brief. The complainant in the present case is a Senior Drugs inspector attached to the office of the Assistant Director, Drugs Control Administration (Rajkot) Division. He is appointed as the Senior Drugs inspector under section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and is duly authorised to institute the proceedings under section 32 of the Act. 3. Original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the partners of respondent No. 4, Hema Laboratories. The Firm was manufacturing drugs and holding licence in Form No, 25 bearing No. G/154 which was renewed upto 31st December, 1973 and was also holding a licence in Form No. 28 bearing No. G/50 which was renewed upto 31st December, 1974. Under the manufacturing licence in Form No. 25, the firm was granted permission to manufacture drugs as mentioned in the list of products duly attested by the Directorate of Drugs Control Administration, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. 4. Under the manufacturing licence in Form No. 25, the firm was granted permission to manufacture drugs as mentioned in the list of products duly attested by the Directorate of Drugs Control Administration, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. 4. That as per the provisions of the licence in Form No. 25, if a licence wants to manufacture for sale additional items of products not included in the list enclosed in the licence, he has to apply to the Licencing Authority fora necessary endorsement as required under rule 69(5) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. 1945 and that the licence issued in Form No. 25 will be deemed to be extended to the categories and names of drugs so endorsed. 5. Records of the Directorate of Drugs showed that the said firm was permitted to manufacture 'Cyprine Liquid' preparation as stated in the lettered June 19, 1974 from the office of the Directorate of Drugs. 6. On August 21, 1974 Shri K.K. Oza, Asstt. Director and B.C. Shah, j Drugs Inspector, visited the manufacturing premises of the firm for carrying out inspection as provided under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules framed thereunder. 7. In course of the inspection, the Officers of the Drugs Control Administration noticed that the firm manufactured Cyprine Liquid bearing Batch No. S/101 and Batch No. S/102 on March 29, 1974 and May 15, 1974 respectively without getting the name of the product Cyprine Liquid endorsed hi the list of products which were permitted to be manufactured under the licence in Form No. 25 granted in favour of the opponents. Shortly stated, in .; behalf, it was the case of the complainant that the accused persons manufactured a product named 'Cyprine Liquid' for sale without obtaining any licence in that behalf from the Drugs Control Administration. 8. It was also alleged in the complaint that the firm had sold Cyprine Liquid bearing Batch Nos. 101 and 102 to the following firms under the bills mentioned against each firm: S. No. Name of the dealer to whom sold. Bill No. and date of M/s. Hema Laboratories, Surendranagar under which Cyprine of B. Nos. S-101 and S-102 were sold. 1. 2. 3. 1. M/s. Paras Medical Stores, Mehsana. S-65/73 74dt. 8.6.74. 2. M/s. Ajit Agencies, Bombay-400 002. S-74 dated 14-6-74. 3. M/s. Jayant Medical Stores, Surendranagar S-78/73,74 dated 1-7-74 4. M/s. Suncy Agencies, Kerala. S-80/73-74 Dt.6-7-74. 5. Bill No. and date of M/s. Hema Laboratories, Surendranagar under which Cyprine of B. Nos. S-101 and S-102 were sold. 1. 2. 3. 1. M/s. Paras Medical Stores, Mehsana. S-65/73 74dt. 8.6.74. 2. M/s. Ajit Agencies, Bombay-400 002. S-74 dated 14-6-74. 3. M/s. Jayant Medical Stores, Surendranagar S-78/73,74 dated 1-7-74 4. M/s. Suncy Agencies, Kerala. S-80/73-74 Dt.6-7-74. 5. M/s. Jayant Medical Stores, Surendranagar. S-82/73-74, dated 10-7-74 6. -do- S-95/73-74 dated 9-8-74. 7. -do- S-60, dated 19-5-74. 8. -do- S-61, dated 21-5-74. 9. M s. Ajit Agencies, Bombay. S-51/73/74, dated 6-5-74. 9. Shri B.C. Shah, Diugs Inspector, had picked up regular sample from the stock of Cyprine Batch Nos. S/101 and S/102 manufactured by opponent No. 4, Hema Laboratories, which were stocked for sale by M/s. Jayant Medical Stores, Surendranagar as provided under section 23 of the aforesaid Act. 10. Necessary intimation in Form No. 17 was given to M/s. Jayant Medical Stores and the statutory procedure laid down under section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was followed by the Inspector who had picked up the samples from the said firm. 11. Mr. B.C. Shah, Drugs Inspector, thereafter sent one sealed portion of Cyprine Liquid bearing Batch No. S/101 and one sealed portion of Cyprine Liquid bearing Batch No. S/102 which were picked up by him from the premises of Jayant Medical Stores to the Government Analyst, Drugs Laboratory, Baroda for test and analysis under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder. It may be mentioned here that necessary orders were also obtained from the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar, for seizure of the drugs and incriminating documents as mentioned in the relevant panchnama as required under sections 23(5)(b) and 23(6) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on September, 10 1974. 12. The Government Analyst as a result of his analysis of the drug in question came at a conclusion that Cyprine Liquid bearing Batch Nos. 101 and S/102 were not of standard quality. He was of the opinion, that the samples of the seized drug indicated the presence of fungal mycelia in sporulating condition. Thereafter, Shri B.C. Shah, the Drugs Inspector, forwarded the test report to Jayant Medical Stores by writing letters dated 17th September 1974 and 21st September 1974. 13. It was alleged that Jayant Medical Stores had disclosed the name of the supplier of the Drug as M/s. Hema Laboratories. Thereafter, Shri B.C. Shah, the Drugs Inspector, forwarded the test report to Jayant Medical Stores by writing letters dated 17th September 1974 and 21st September 1974. 13. It was alleged that Jayant Medical Stores had disclosed the name of the supplier of the Drug as M/s. Hema Laboratories. Surendra nagar (Opponent j No. 4) and, therefore, the Drugs Inspector sent one sealed portion each of the sample, Cyprine Liquid Batch No. S/101 and S/102 along with the test reports of the Government Analyst, Drugs Laboratory, Baroda, in. respect of the drugs which were seized from Jayant Medical Stores as provided under section 23 of the Act. 14. It may be mentioned at this stage, that the original accused No. 1 Aswin C. Shah (Opponent No.i) had given his statement before Shri K.K. Oza, Assistant Director, and Shri H. C Shah, Drugs Inspector, on 23rd August, 1974 and stated that the firm of M/s. Hema Laboratories, Surendranagar (Opponent No. 4) had manufactured the product Cyprine bearing Batch No. S/101 on 29th March, 1974 in the batches of 25 litres and the batch in question was got tested and the product was released for sale on 6th May, 1974. The statement given by' the original accused No. T was produced among with the complaint which was filed in the court of the learned Magistrate. 15. It was alleged by the complainant that the product Cyprine is used i for mitigation or prevention of diseases in human beings and, therefore, it is a drug within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 16. Shortly stated on the aforesaid facts, the necessary charge at Ex. 40 was framed by the learned Magistrate. It was alleged that all the accused persons, namely, the three partners of the Opponent No. 4 firm, had committed offences contemplated under sections; 18(a)(i) and 18(a)(iia) and 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with sections 27 and 34 of the Act. 17. In order to prove the charge which was levelled against the accused persons, Hasmukhlal, P.W. 1 Ex. 11, was examined as a witness. At the relevant time, he was the Drags Inspector. 17. In order to prove the charge which was levelled against the accused persons, Hasmukhlal, P.W. 1 Ex. 11, was examined as a witness. At the relevant time, he was the Drags Inspector. His evidence does disclose beyond any doubt that Cyprine Liquid was manufactured by the firm Opponent No.4 on 'March 29, 1974 and June 15, 1974 without any Licence and without getting the name of the product Cyprine Liquid endorsed in the list of products which were permitted to be manufactured under the licence which was issued in favour of the firm in Form No. 25. On this part of the prosecution case and incharge, there is evidence of the complainant and the statement of Opponent No. 1 admitting that the product Cyprine was manufactured on the aforesaid license without any licence or without getting the name of the product endorsed 1 in the list of products which were permitted to be manufactured under the licence issued in Form No. 25. On this count, apart from the evidence on the record of the case. Opponent No. 1 has admitted and the learned Magistrate had recorded the plea of guilty to the charge levelled against the accused persons. 18. For proving the charge, that the drug in question was not of standard quality, and that the same was adulterated drug, apart from the evidence of the complainant on the record of the case, there are certificates of tests of analysis by the Government Analyst produced at Exhs.34, 35, 36 and 37. In the opinion of the Government Analyst, samples of the seized drug were not of standard quality as defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Government Analyst also gave his reason is to why he had come to that conclusion. In his opinion, the samples of the filling which were seized indicated the presence of fungal mycelia in sporulating condition, in Exh. The Government Analyst also gave his reason is to why he had come to that conclusion. In his opinion, the samples of the filling which were seized indicated the presence of fungal mycelia in sporulating condition, in Exh. 35, which is the report submitted by the Government Analyst, the description of the drug in question is mentioned as follows : - "Amber coloured liquid showing the presence of large fluffy matter easily visible and suspended in the liquid, miscroscopic examination showed the matter to be fungal mycelia in sporulating condition." The Government Analyst also gave an identical opinion for Cyprine Liquid which was of the second type and his covering letter along with the report in this behalf are produced by the prosecution at Exhs. 36 and 37. 19. Thus, apart from the oral evidence of Hasmukhlal Natverlal Shah, P.W. Exh. 11, there is cogent evidence on the record of the case, namely, the opinion and the report of the Government Analyst which clearly prove that the drug in question was not of standard quality and that the same was an adulterated drug. 20. Accused No. 1 in his statement recorded before the learned Magistrate admitted the charge which was levelled against him and had prayed for mercy. 21. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced opponent No. 1 and imposed on him nominal, inadequate and unjust punishment, namely, to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a line of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under section 27 read with section 34 of the Act. The learned Magistrate had discharged opponent Nos. 2 and 3, the other partners of the firm. The learned Magistrate also sentenced the firm to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under section 27 read with section 34 of the commission of the said offence. 22. It is under these circumstances that this Court received an anonymous letter addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and it was decided to treat the letter as Revision Application under its suo mom Revision Jurisdiction. 23. Rule was issued on the Revision Application on August 7, 1974 and the matter is placed before me for disposal. Mr. B.J. Shelat, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the sentence which is passed on the opponents by the learned Magistrate is glossly inadequate and the same has resulted into patent miscarriage of justice. 23. Rule was issued on the Revision Application on August 7, 1974 and the matter is placed before me for disposal. Mr. B.J. Shelat, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the sentence which is passed on the opponents by the learned Magistrate is glossly inadequate and the same has resulted into patent miscarriage of justice. In substance Mr. Shelat submitted that the Court should like into consideration the nature of the offence particularly when at affects the health of the society. He submitted that there is cogent and clear T. evidence to prove that the drug in question was not" of standard quality and was an adulterated one. He has also submitted that the aforesaid evidence is clear and consistent to prove that the drug in question was manufactured without the requisite licence as stated above. In this view ' of the matter, Mr. Shelat submitted that this is a tit case where this court should exercise its suo mani powers in revision and to enhance the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate in order to meet with the ends of Justice. 24. M.M. Desai, learned Advocate, in spite of the fact that there was plea of guilty by opponent No. 1 before the learned Magistrate, asked me to go through the evidence on record of the case. I have gone through the entire evidence on record to which my attention was invited by Mr. Desai. The evidence of the Drugs inspector and the reports of the Government Analyst conclusively prove the charge levelled against the opponents As stated above, in the instant case, opponent No. 1 had also admitted that he was guilty of the commission of the offences in question. 25. Mr. Desai requested that in the instant case, if the Court comes at a conclusion that this is a lit case for enhancing the sentence, the fine which has been imposed by the learned Magistrate should be enhanced, and that will serve the cause of Justice. 26. It is not possible for me to agree with the request of Mr. Desai on the question of sentence. In the case before me, I am grieved that the Drugs Control Administration did not file any revision application before this Court for enhancement of the sentence. Surely in a case of this nature, the Department should have been more vigilant to file the necessary application for enhancement of sentence. Desai on the question of sentence. In the case before me, I am grieved that the Drugs Control Administration did not file any revision application before this Court for enhancement of the sentence. Surely in a case of this nature, the Department should have been more vigilant to file the necessary application for enhancement of sentence. In the instant case, but for the receipt of the anonymous letter, this matter would not have been placed fore the Court. The alleged offence would a feet the human health and a serious view of the matter must necessarily be taken in order to cause deterrent effect in the minds of manufacturers of drugs and a lighter punishment ultimately would not be serve the cause of Justice and sometimes frustrates the very purpose and object of the Act. 27. Cases are not few in number, where and when lighter punishments are inflicted on the offenders for commission of such serious offences and the offenders leave the court, room with a smile of ridicule on their faces and the same hardly causes either any deterrent or reformative effect on the minds of the offenders. Having regard to the nature of offences and their resultant serious evil consequences affecting the human health of the society think the ends of justice will, be served if opponent No. 1 is convicted and sentenced nor-suffer R.I. for one year for commission of each of the three offences and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the commission of each of the offences, in default to suffer R.I. for three months for each count. Substantive sentences oil imprisonment imposed on opponent No. 1 are ordered to run concurrently, 1 28. Opponent No. 4 is a firm and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for each of the aforesaid three offences under section 27 read with section 34 of the Act. 29. Subject to opponent No. 1 being directed to serve the aforesaid sentence, the revision application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. It revision application is allowed. 30. Accused No. is given one month's time to surrender to custody. Revision application allowed.