Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1197 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Ramesh Kumar

2003-08-27

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Ramesh Kumar stands acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat vide impugned judgment dated 14.11.1991. State of Haryana has, thus, filed the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 18.9.1984, Shri L.C. Mittal, the then District Drugs Inspector, Sonepat visited the shop of the respondent and found him in possession of 55 types of allopathic drugs meant for public sale and distribution. Respondent could not produce any permit or licence for the sale of the said drugs and as such a complaint was filed against him under section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act (for short to be referred as the Act). 3. After leading pre-charge evidence, respondent was charged under section 27(b)(ii) and section 28 of the Act. 4. The prosecution in support of its case had examined only one witness Dr. O.P. Hooda who has stated that on 16.9.1984 he had accompanied Sh. Lal Chand Mittal, the then District Drugs Inspector, Sonepat to the shop of the respondent and found him in possession of 55 types of allopathic drugs of medicine. He further deposed that the respondent was not able to produce any licence. 5. The trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt as no independent witness was joined at the time of the inspection of the shop of the respondent and the sole uncorroborated testimony of Dr. O.P. Hooda, the only prosecution witness examined, cannot be safely relied upon for the purpose of convicting the respondent. 6. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. H.N. Mehtani, the learned counsel for the respondent. With their assistance I have also gone through the entire record. 7. Mr. Bhardwaj states that in fact Sh. L.C. Mittal, Drug Inspector who was material witness in this case was already examined by the prosecution in the pre-charge evidence on oath by the trial court and that the respondent was given an opportunity to cross-examine him but he did not avail that opportunity against the respondent alongwith the statement of Dr. O.P. Hooda, who was examined after framing the charge. It is then contended that the trial court has illegally closed the evidence of the prosecution by the order of the Court. O.P. Hooda, who was examined after framing the charge. It is then contended that the trial court has illegally closed the evidence of the prosecution by the order of the Court. Subsequently an application under section 311 Criminal Procedure Code was also moved for summoning PW L.C. Mittal and Sh. Raj Kumar but the same has also been illegally rejected by the Court. Mr. Bhardwaj further contends that even otherwise, the statement of Dr. O.P. Hooda is enough to hold (uphold ?) the conviction of the respondent. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Mehtani refuting the arguments advanced by the learned State Counsel submits that the solitary statement of Dr. O.P. Hooda cannot be made the basis of the conviction. He then contends that in the cross-examination of this witness many material lacunas have crept in which would be enough to discard the prosecution case. 9. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the respondent in this case. Legally the statement of L.C. Mittal, Drug Inspector cannot be taken into account as he was never examined after framing of the charge. The only evidence recorded against the respondent is statement of Dr. O.P. Hooda. The said statement has been seen by me minutely. It suffers from many infirmities. 10. The contention of learned State Counsel that application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code was wrongly rejected by the trial Court is also repelled. In case the State has any grouse against the rejection of the said application, the said order could be set aside by filing revision according to law. Certainly, the same has not been done. The order closing the prosecution evidence by the court, thus, became final. The State now cannot derive any advantage at this stage. The fact remains that the prosecution is left with the solitary statement of Dr. O.P. Hooda which is not at all convincing. In my view the respondent has rightly earned acquittal. The same is hereby re-affirmed. Resultantly, the present appeal fails being devoid of any merit. Appeal dismissed.