Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1445 (MAD)

P. S. Singarayan v. The State By Drugs Inspector

2002-11-21

N.DHINAKAR

body2002
Judgment :- The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 13 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate. Eraniel and he was tried for offences punishable under S. 33 EF. A (d) and 33 EE C (a)(i) r/w 33 I (i)(b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and also to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- with a default sentence of 6 months. On appeal, the conviction and sentence were confirmed. The allegation against the petitioner is that P.W. 1, the Drugs Inspector inspected the pharmacy belonging to the petitioner at Thickanamcode and found the medicinal preparation 'Asoka Aristom' in bottles without tables and took samples from the medicinal preparation and when the sample was analysed by the Government analyst, a foreign material Morphine was found in the preparation and therefore he laid the complaint. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for any cognizance to be taken by the Court for the offence with which the accused was charged, a sanction is sine qua non in terms of S. 33(M) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. He submits that before the trial Court, the prosecution marked Ex. P. 13 an order purporting to be a sanction order and a perusal of the same Indicates that the sanction order was not actually given by the Director of Drugs Control and therefore there is no sanction and hence the whole proceedings are bad in law. I have heard the learned Government Advocate '(Criminal Side) on the above contentions, who contends that since the prosecution has marked Ex. P. 13. it can be said that sanction was obtained and the prosecution was rightly launched. I have perused the materials and on a perusal of the materials, I find that Ex. P. 13. which was marked by the prosecution as a sanction order alleged to have been issued by the Director of Drugs Control, is not actually a sanction order, but only an order which contains the initials of some person. The prosecution did not even take the trouble of examining the person to depose that the materials were placed before the sanctioning authority and that the said sanctioning authority, on a perusal of the materials was satisfied and passed an order granting sanction for the prosecution. The prosecution did not even take the trouble of examining the person to depose that the materials were placed before the sanctioning authority and that the said sanctioning authority, on a perusal of the materials was satisfied and passed an order granting sanction for the prosecution. In the absence of any such evidence from the prosecution side, the prosecution cannot rest content by marking a copy of the order, which only contains the initials of some person, who is also not examined in Court. In view of the above, it is difficult to accept the contention of the prosecution that Ex. P. 13 is a sanction order, since no order of sanction was marked and proved before the trial Court and Ex. P. 13 is only a copy of the order containing the initials of some Individual. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution is bad in law as S. 33(m) of the Drug and Cosmetics Act was not followed. The revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner are set aside. Fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.