Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 410 (PNJ)

Surinder Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2008-02-14

HARBANS LAL

body2008
Judgment Harbans Lal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th September, 1996/order of sentence dated 26th September, 1996 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Yamunanagar, Jagadhri, whereby he acquitted Nisha Rani but convicted and sentenced the accused Surinder Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Mukesh Kumar as under : Surinder Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Mukesh Kumar 1. Under section 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, defaulter to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default thereof, defaulter to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each. 4. Under section 274 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months 5. Under section 487 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Surinder Kumar only 1. Under section 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years 2. Under section 275 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. Under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. With further direction that all the substantive sentences awarded to the accused/appellants shall run concurrently. 2 Shorn of all unnecessary details, the brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 23rd December, 1993 at about 11.30 AM Shiv Kumar Chopra (complainant) was present at his clinic, when Surinder Kumar accused representing himself to be an agent of M/s Jyoti Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ladwa (for short "Jyoti Pharma") came there for selling medicines. On the demand of the complainant, Surinder Kumar accused gave him a packet of 500 tablets of Cadilla Company having Batch No. 2239 MFG 4.1993 Exp. 3.1997 with the rate Rs. 625.78/- printed thereon. The accused agreed to sell the box of tablets for Rs. 500/-. The complainant paid him Rs. On the demand of the complainant, Surinder Kumar accused gave him a packet of 500 tablets of Cadilla Company having Batch No. 2239 MFG 4.1993 Exp. 3.1997 with the rate Rs. 625.78/- printed thereon. The accused agreed to sell the box of tablets for Rs. 500/-. The complainant paid him Rs. 100 immediately and he sent a man to his house to bring the remaining amount of Rs. 400/-. On the demand of the complainant, Surinder Kumar accused refused to give him the bill. This created a suspicion in the mind of the complainant, who opened the box and found that there was no seal inside. He also suspected that the tablets were not genuine. The complainant then made his statement Ex. P.C. to SI Jagdish Ram which led to the registration of the FIR Ex. P.C./1 under Sections 420, 274, 275 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 3. Around 3.30 PM, when the complainant was talking with police officials, Surinder Kumar accused came there to collect the remaining sale price of the tablets. He had with him a packet of paracetamol, packets of Wysolone and Celestamine. 200 tablets of Oriprim DS represented to be of Cadilla company sold by Surinder Kumar to the complainant were taken out from the bag and four samples were prepared containing 50 tablets each. The remaining tablets were put in the same bag. Two bags out of them were sealed with the seal of `JR and the other two bags were sealed with the seal of `SK and these were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P.G. The tin containing paracetamol tablets, the packets containing Wysolone and Celestamine tablets recovered from the bag of Surinder Kumar accused were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PH by SI Jagdish Ram. 4. On interrogation, Surinder Kumar accused disclosed to have kept concealed more drugs in his house situated at Ladwa and in the factory premises of M/s Jyoti Pharma Ladwa. His disclosure statement Ex.P.J. was jotted down. 5. On 25.12.1993, PW13 Inspector Abhey Singh called Dr. Shiv Kumar Chopra to his office in C.I.A. Staff Yamunanagar. Surinder Kumar accused, who was already in police custody at that time, was taken to Ladwa. His disclosure statement Ex.P.J. was jotted down. 5. On 25.12.1993, PW13 Inspector Abhey Singh called Dr. Shiv Kumar Chopra to his office in C.I.A. Staff Yamunanagar. Surinder Kumar accused, who was already in police custody at that time, was taken to Ladwa. The accused took police to his house No. 148 in Dhobi Mohalla Ladwa from where he got recovered four sealed tin boxes of Oriprim DS of Cadilla Company from an almirah. By breaking open the seals, 50 tablets were taken out from each box to serve as sample after mixing all the tablets and the same were put into packets. Those sample packets as well as tin boxes containing remaining tablets were sealed with the seal `IS, which after use was handed over to Shiv Kumar PW. These were seized vide recovery memo Ex.PK. Then Surinder Kumar accused was taken to Jyoti Pharma, which was found to be closed. Mukesh Kumar and Vinod Kumar accused were called from their houses through SI Jagdish Ram. The factory was opened with their keys by Mukesh Kumar and Vinod Kumar. There were four rooms on the right side of the entrance of that factory. From one of those rooms, Surinder Kumar accused brought loose tablets of Cadilla company weighing about 10 kgs. bearing engraved impression `DS. Three samples of 50 tablets each were drawn from the packet. All the packets were sealed with seal `IS and seized vide recovery memo Ex.PL. Mukesh Kumar and Vinod Kumar accused, the owners of the factory were also arrested on the same day. On their interrogation in the premises of CIA Staff Yamunanagar on 26th December, 1993 in the presence of Harish Arora, Vinod Kumar accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PU about the concealment of large stock of spurious medicines of different companies with their labels in a godown of the rented house No. 25 in Shivdayalpuri, Yamunanagar as well as in a godown of his building of his tractor workshop behind his factory at Ladwa. Mukesh Kumar suffered similar disclosure statement Ex.PV. Inspector Abhey Singh tried to send for the Drug Inspector on 24th December, 1993 as well as on 26th December, 1993 but he was not available. Mukesh Kumar suffered similar disclosure statement Ex.PV. Inspector Abhey Singh tried to send for the Drug Inspector on 24th December, 1993 as well as on 26th December, 1993 but he was not available. Vinod Kumar and Mukesh Kumar accused were taken to Shivdayalpuri Colony where each of them separately demarcated the house which belonged to Om Parkash PW, who was made aware of the facts and joined in the investigation. Mukesh Kumar accused broke open the lock of a room where a large stock of medicines was lying. The names and the quantity of various medicines recovered from there were mentioned in the recovery memo Ex.PS. The samples were taken out from the medicines mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 13 and 24 in the recovery memo. Sample packets and the packets containing the remaining medicines were sealed with the seal `JNC. Besides that some packing material, details of which have been given from Serial Nos. 14 to 23 in the recovery memo Ex.PS were also recovered from that room. No date of manufacturing, price, formulation or any mark was written on the bags. 6. On the same day, Mukesh Kumar and Vinod Kumar accused were taken to Ladwa by Inspector Abhey Singh, who was also accompanied by SI Jagdish Chand and Harish Kumar PWs. They all went to Jyoti Pharma where Kanwaljit Singh PW was joined with the police party. They both demarcated the building of their tractor workshop which had a room on its backside. They both entered the said room and took out polythene bags containing loose tablets. Three samples were separated from each of the five bags which were sealed with the seal `JNC and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PX. The dyes, machinery and the documents lying in the factory were seized vide recovery memo Ex.PY. 7. The samples of the concerned manufacturing companies were sent to each of the company for analysis. The loose tablets without any name were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, for analysis. The samples taken out on 23rd December, 1993 at the clinic of Dr. Shiv Kumar complainant were sent for analysis to Government Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh. As per reports of Public Analyst, the private companies and the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PD, Ex.PM, Ex.PM/1, Ex.PM/3, Ex.PN/2, Ex.PN/3, Ex.PO/1, Ex.PO/2, Ex.PO/3 and Ex.PZ. The samples taken out on 23rd December, 1993 at the clinic of Dr. Shiv Kumar complainant were sent for analysis to Government Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh. As per reports of Public Analyst, the private companies and the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PD, Ex.PM, Ex.PM/1, Ex.PM/3, Ex.PN/2, Ex.PN/3, Ex.PO/1, Ex.PO/2, Ex.PO/3 and Ex.PZ. The samples of the medicines were found to have been not manufactured by any of the companies whose name was imprinted on the medicines and all the medicines were found to be sub-standard. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused. 8. The accused were charged under Sections 120-B, 274, 487 of IPC, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short `the Act, 1955), Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Section 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short `the Act, 1958). The accused Surinder Kumar was also charged under Section 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 as well as under Sections 275, 420 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial. 9. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution has examined ASI Balbir Singh PW-1, Smt. Kamlesh Jain, Government Analyst, Haryana, PW2, ML Garg, State Drugs Controller, Haryana PW-3, CP Mehta, Assistant State Drugs Controller, Haryana, PW-4, Dr. Shiv Kumar PW-5, SI Jagdish Ram PW-6, AD Shah, Quality Assurance Manager of Duphar Interfram Limited, PW-7, John L. Carvaloh, Ex. General Manager, Quality Assurance, PW-8, M. Parkash Rao PW-9, Inspector Sant Ram PW-10, Om Parkash PW-11, Asha Chaudhary, Director Fullford (India) Limited, Bombay PW-12, Inspector Abhey Singh PW-13. Besides this, the prosecution tendered into evidence the affidavits Exs. PA, PB, PQ, Ex.PR and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PZ. The prosecution evidence was shut out by order of the Court. 10. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., all the three accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence. Accused Vinod Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and Nisha Rani pleaded that they have been falsely implicated them in this case because of their enmity with Sant Ram Inspector police and Dr. Shiv Kumar Chopra PW. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., all the three accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence. Accused Vinod Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and Nisha Rani pleaded that they have been falsely implicated them in this case because of their enmity with Sant Ram Inspector police and Dr. Shiv Kumar Chopra PW. In their defence, they produced the certified copy of the writ petition Ex.DC, report of the Warrant Officer Ex.DD, certified copies of the affidavit and written reply Ex.DE and Ex.DF respectively, reply of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra Ex.DG and certified copies of application and order Ex.DH and Ex.DJ respectively and the documents Mark A to Mark G. 11. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused Surinder Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Mukesh Kumar as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with their conviction, they have preferred this appeal. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with due care and circumspection. 13. Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants urged with a good deal of force that as is borne out from the prosecution evidence, no Drug Inspector was joined in the raid and thus, obviously the Investigator acted in utter violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. He further pressed into service that it is well settled law that only the Drug Inspector could lodge the complaint qua the violations of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, 1940 and furthermore, no sample was given to the accused for the purpose of reanalysis. Argued further, as per the provisions of Section 33(G)(4) of the said Act, the previous sanction of the specified authorities was required to be obtained before launching the prosecution, which is lacking. In view of these infirmities, the learned trial Court was not justified in recording the conviction and sentence under Section 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 14. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana on behalf of the State could not reconcile this contention in any manner. Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 reads as under : "32. 14. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana on behalf of the State could not reconcile this contention in any manner. Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 reads as under : "32. Cognizance of offences :- (1) No prosecution under this Chapter shall be instituted except by an Inspector or by the person aggrieved or by a recognized consumer association whether such person is a member of that association or not." 15 From the bare reading of the above language, it is quite plain and patent that only the Drug Inspector can launch the prosecution by lodging the complaint. Further, in re : Chandhan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl.), 724, this Court observed that for a contravention of the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, FIR is not competent and the complaint is to be filed before a Magistrate by Drug Inspector. An Identical view has been taken in re : Rajeev Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.), 846. 16. In re : Manju Kumari and another v. State of Bihar and others, 2006(4) RCR(Criminal) 660 : 2006 Criminal Law Journal 3014, the misbranded medicines were seized by Police Officer. There was no evidence that Drug Inspector participated in raid or the search and seizure was made in his presence. It was held that the police officials have got no jurisdiction to institute a case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. In re : Dr. Om Prakash Singh and etc. v. State and another, 2005(2) RCR(Criminal) 756 : 2003 Criminal Law Journal 4276, the accused were prosecuted for making spurious medicine. The complaint was lodged without obtaining previous sanction of the authority specified under Section 33(G)(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The complaint was quashed as the same was lodged by the Drug Inspector without obtaining the sanction from competent authority. 17. Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, it is also alleged by the prosecution that the medicines recovered at the instance of the appellants were spurious in nature. There is no gain saying the fact that the Drug Inspector was not joined in the raiding party. The raid could be conducted only in his presence. He was to draw the samples and part of the same were to be given to the accused/appellants for re-analysis purpose. There is no gain saying the fact that the Drug Inspector was not joined in the raiding party. The raid could be conducted only in his presence. He was to draw the samples and part of the same were to be given to the accused/appellants for re-analysis purpose. Further, it was only the Drug Inspector, who could lodge complaint after having obtained the sanction from the authority specified in Section 33(G) (4) ibid. Here in this case, all the rules and procedural prescriptions have been thrown to the wind. It is unbelievable that at all the times, the Drug Inspector was not available. It is not the prosecution case that he was on leave during the period under reference. A big haul of spurious medicines were seized in consequence of search, but every time the Drug Inspector was missing For non- observance of the statutory provisions of law, the conviction and sentence under Section 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, is not sustainable and hence, set aside. 18. Mr. Jindal further canvassed at the bar that all the proceeding in this case have been conducted in utter disregard of the statutory provisions of law and sequelly, the conviction and sentence awarded under other Sections is also liable to be set aside. 19. Mr. Goripuria, could not meet this contention in a successful manner. All the three appellants have also been convicted and sentenced under Section 78 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 whereas the appellant Surinder Kumar has also been convicted and sentenced under Section 79 of the same. Section 78 of the Act, 1958 reads as under : "78. Penalty for applying false trade marks, trade descriptions, etc. All the three appellants have also been convicted and sentenced under Section 78 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 whereas the appellant Surinder Kumar has also been convicted and sentenced under Section 79 of the same. Section 78 of the Act, 1958 reads as under : "78. Penalty for applying false trade marks, trade descriptions, etc. - Any person who - (a) falsifies any trade mark; or (b) falsely apply to goods any trade mark; or (c) makes, disposes of, or has in his possession, any dye, block, machine, plate or other instrument for the purpose of falsifying, or of being used for falsifying a trade mark; or (d) applies any false trade description to goods; or (e) applies to any goods to which an indication of the country or place in which they were made or produced or the name and address of the manufacturer or person for whom the goods are manufactured is required to be applied under section 117, a false indication of such country, place, name or address; or (f) tampers with, alters or effaces an indication of origin which has been applied to any goods to which it is required to be applied under Section 117; or (g) causes any of the things above-mentioned in the section to be done, shall, unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both: Provided that where the offence under this section is in relation to goods or any package containing goods which are drugs within the meaning of clause (b) of Section 3 of the Drugs Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), or "food" as defined in clause (v) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Section 79 ibid runs as under : "79. Penalty for selling goods to which a false trade mark or false trade description is applied. Penalty for selling goods to which a false trade mark or false trade description is applied. - Any person who sells, or exposes for sale or has in his possession for sale or for any purpose of trade manufacture, any goods or things to which any false trade mark or false trade description is applied or which, being required under Section 117 to have applied to them an indication of the country or place in which they were made or produced or the name and address of the manufacturer or the person for whom the goods are manufactured, are without the indication so required, unless he proves- (a) that, having taken all reasonable precautions against committing an offence against this section, he had at the time of the commission of the alleged offence no reason to suspect the genuineness of the trade mark or trade description or that any offence had been committed in respect of the goods; and (b) that, on demand by or on behalf of the prosecutor, he gave all the information in his power with respect to the person from whom he obtained such goods or things; or (c) that otherwise he had acted innocently; be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both : Provided that when the offence against this section is in relation to goods, or any package containing goods which are drugs as defined in clause (b) of Section 3 of the Drugs Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), or "food" as defined in clause (v) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." 20. The afore-quoted Sections contemplate a complaint by a complainant who has a registered trade mark. If the complaint does not show that the complainant has a registered trade mark, the pre-condition for taking cognizance by the Magistrate is not established, and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Needless to say, in the case in hand, FIR has been registered, whereas the complaint was required to be filed by the person, whose registered trade mark has been imitated, counterfeited and falsified. Needless to say, in the case in hand, FIR has been registered, whereas the complaint was required to be filed by the person, whose registered trade mark has been imitated, counterfeited and falsified. It was further required to be proved by such person that the accused/appellants were doing with the criminal intention of causing wrongful loss to him. There is neither such complainant nor complaint nor evidence. To say the least of it, the evidence which could supply the ingredients of Sections 78 and 79 ibid is not forth-coming. Sequelly, the conviction and sentence under these Sections is hereby set aside. 21. There is also no evidence of sterling character to substantiate the charge under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 . As such, the conviction/sentence recorded thereunder is also set aside. Section 487 of reads as under : "487. Making a false mark upon any receptacle containing goods. - Whoever makes any false mark upon any case, package or other receptacle containing goods, in a manner reasonably calculated to cause any public servant or any other person to believe that such receptacle contains goods which it does not contain or that it does not contain goods which it does quality different from the real nature or quality thereof, shall, unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." 22. As would be apparent from the reports Ex.PM, Ex.PM/1, Ex.PM/2, Ex.PM/3, Ex.PN, Ex.PN/1 to Ex.PN/5, Ex.PO to Ex.PO/1, Ex.PO/3, Ex.PT, Ex.PT/1 to Ex.PT6 proved by A.D. Shah, PW-7, John L.Carvaloh, PW-8, Om Prakash Rao, PW9 and Asha Chaudhary, PW12, the strips containing the tablets or cartons containing strip of tablets were found to be different in physical appearance from the standard strips or the cartons of those companies. Thus, it transpires that the appellants were misusing the name of the various drug companies, namely, Dupher Interfram, Wyeth Laboratories, Lupin Laboratories and Fullford(India) Limited, Bombay. Therefore, in view of the above documentary evidence, it is held that the charge under Section 487 of IPC is established against the accused. Section 274 of IPC is in the following terms : "274. Adulteration of drugs. Therefore, in view of the above documentary evidence, it is held that the charge under Section 487 of IPC is established against the accused. Section 274 of IPC is in the following terms : "274. Adulteration of drugs. - Whoever adulterates any drug or medical preparation in such a manner as to lessen the efficacy or change the operation of such drug or medical preparation, or to make it noxious, intending that it shall be sold or used for, or knowing it to be likely that it will be sold or used for, any medicinal purpose, as if it had not undergone such adulteration, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." Section 275 of IPC runs as under : "275. Sale of adulterated drugs. - Whoever, knowing any drug or medical preparation to have been adulterated in such a manner as to lessen its efficacy, to change its operation, or to render it noxious, sells the same, or offers or exposes it for sale, or issues it from any dispensary for medicinal purposes as unadulterated, or causes it to be used for medicinal purposes by any person not knowing of the adulteration, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." 23. According to the test report Ex.PM, certificates of analysis Ex.PM/1, Ex.PM/2 and the letter Ex.PM/3 proved by PW-7 A.D.Shah, all the tablets sent to his company by the police were to be spurious and injurious to health and had not been manufactured by their company. Further, PW-8 John L.Carvalho, Ex.General Manager, Quality Assurance proved the strips Ex.PN prepared by his company and the strips PN/1 received from Yamunanagar and submitted his reports PN/2 and PN/3. He has deposed that the alleged tablets of Wysolone received from Yamunanagar being spurious could be injurious to heath and even cause death. PW-9 M. Parkash Rao has also proved the report Ex.PO and deposed that the drugs sent by Superintendent of Police, Yamunanagar were found to be not of standard quality. He has deposed that the alleged tablets of Wysolone received from Yamunanagar being spurious could be injurious to heath and even cause death. PW-9 M. Parkash Rao has also proved the report Ex.PO and deposed that the drugs sent by Superintendent of Police, Yamunanagar were found to be not of standard quality. PW11 Om Parkash has demonstrated the recovery of various drugs from a rented room of his house at the instance of Vinod Kumar and Mukesh Kumar accused on 26th December, 1993. On appraising this evidence which has gone un-rebutted, it is held that the offence under Section 274 of IPC is established against the appellants and the offence punishable under Section 275 of IPC is also proved against Surinder Kumar appellant. 24. As observed in re : S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, 2001(4) RCR(Criminal) 572 : 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 120, the ingredients of an offence of cheating are : (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii)(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. 25. PW-5 Dr. Shiv Kumar, Registered Medical Practitioner, Chopra Clinic, Yamunanagar has stated as under : "On 23.12.1993, I was present on my clinic around 11.00 A.M. Surinder accused present in court came to me. He introduced himself to me as an agent of M/s Jyoti Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ladwa. He showed me some samples of medicines including Celestiamin manufactured by Fulfourd company, predineslone (salt) having the trade name Wysolone manufactured by Wythe company. I agreed with him to purchase a packet of Oriprim DS of Cadila company having a print price of Rs. 625/-. He agreed to sell it to me for Rs. 500/-. I gave him Rs. 100 in advance and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs. 400/- at the time of his return in the evening. He had already supplied me the packet on taking Rs. 100/-. 625/-. He agreed to sell it to me for Rs. 500/-. I gave him Rs. 100 in advance and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs. 400/- at the time of his return in the evening. He had already supplied me the packet on taking Rs. 100/-. The accused Surinder Kumar in spite of my asking refused to issue the bill. When Surinder Kumar had left my clinic, I opened the pack and found that the tablets were not of standard. I suspected the genuineness of the tablets. Then I contacted the agency holder of the said medicine on telephone and he told that a packet containing 500 tablets of that particular medicine is not manufactured by Cadilla Company. The same day, I lodged a complaint Ex.P.C. with the police in front of my clinic at a distance of about 100 yards where the police was present." 26. It is manifestly clear from the above evidence that Surinder Kumar accused was fully cognizant of the fact that the packet of Oriprim DS, which he had intended to sell to Dr. Shiv Kumar, was not manufactured by Cadilla company and he induced the aforesaid doctor to purchase the same and his such act was likely to cause damage or harm to the abovementioned doctor in his reputation as it could have been detected by the buyer from this doctor that the packet of Oriprim DS was not of the alleged company. Thus, the offence under Section 420 of IPC is established against the accused/appellant Surinder Kumar. The defence evidence in no manner demolishes the prosecution case nor refute any charged offence. 27. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the charges under Sections 274, 487 of IPC are proved against all the appellants whereas in addition thereto, charge under Sections 275 and 420 of IPC is also established against the appellant Surinder Kumar. 28. Sequelly, this appeal is partly accepted by maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellants Vinod Kumar and Mukesh Kumar under Sections 274, 487 of IPC and also uphold the conviction and sentence of appellant Surinder Kumar under Sections 274, 275, 420, 487 of IPC. 28. Sequelly, this appeal is partly accepted by maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellants Vinod Kumar and Mukesh Kumar under Sections 274, 487 of IPC and also uphold the conviction and sentence of appellant Surinder Kumar under Sections 274, 275, 420, 487 of IPC. However, they all are hereby acquitted of the charges under Section 27 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 , Section 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The appellant Surinder Kumar is also hereby acquitted of the charge under Section 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.