Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 381 (PNJ)

Rajesh Kumar v. District Drug Inspector, Sangrur

2011-01-31

NAWAB SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated November 19th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Sangrur affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated December 8th, 2001 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, whereby, petitioner was convicted under Sections 27(c) and 27(d) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default u/S 27(c) RI for 3 years Rs.5000/- RI for 2 months 27(d) RI for 1 year Rs.1000/- RI for 1 month Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. On December 18th, 1992, A.R. Salwan, Drugs Inspector-complainant along with Kamal Ram, Peon inspected the shop of the petitioner in the name and style 'M/s Krishan Medical Hall, Amargarh. During inspection, one Dharam Pal son of Bhupinder Kumar was associated as a public witness. On search of the shop, it was found that the petitioner had stocked Trimethoprim and Sulphamethoxazole tablets having Batch No.101 manufactured by Medicare, Pharmaceuticals, Shri Ganganagar. Four samples containing 40 tablets each were prepared. The samples were sealed with the seal of the complainant bearing impression 'ARS' and marked as sample No. SG202/92. Each sample was signed by the petitioner and Dharam Pal. One sample was handed over to the petitioner. Price of the sample was paid to the petitioner. One sealed sample was sent to the Government Analyst, Punjab on December th, 1992 vide memorandum bearing No. 2379. As no contents of Trimethoprim and Sulphamethoxazole were found in the drugs, the Analyst, Punjab reported that these were not of standard quality and declared the same to be spurious and misbranded. A copy of the report was sent to the petitioner with a request to produce its purchase record. Despite issuance of reminder, the petitioner did not reply. 3. Thereafter, one sealed part of sample along with test report was sent to M/s Medicare Pharmaceuticals, Ganganagar. The company also did not reply. On June 10th, 1993 the petitioner sent a letter along with his affidavit stating that the drugs were purchased by him from Jagdish Bhatia, Pandusar Mohalla, Tehsil Nabha District Patiala but he (Jagdish Bhatia) has refused to give him the relevant purchase record. Then the complainant sent a letter to Jagdish Bhatia. The letter was received back with the report “addressee cannot be found without house number and street number”. Then the complainant sent a letter to Jagdish Bhatia. The letter was received back with the report “addressee cannot be found without house number and street number”. Hence, a complaint was filed before the Area Magistrate. 4. The petitioner was charged under Sections 27(c) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In evidence, A.R. Salwan, Drugs Inspector (PW-1), Sita Rani, Senior Assistant in the office of Director Health Services, Punjab (PW-2) and Kuldeep Singh, Drugs Inspector (PW-3) were examined. 6. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied all the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded false implication. 7. In defence, Krishan Gopal (DW-1) and Kulwant Singh Sandhu, Superintendent in the office of Director Health Services (DW-2) were examined. 8. In this case, A.R. Salwan, Drugs Inspector (PW-1) along with Kamal Ram, Peon raided the premises of the petitioner on December 18th, 1992. Dharam Pal was also joined in the raiding party. The search of the shop, according to A.R. Salwan, Drugs Inspector (PW-1), revealed that the petitioner had stocked Trimethoprim and Sulpha thoxazole tablets bearing Batch No.101 manufactured by Medicare, Pharmaceuticals, Shri Ganganagar. The petitioner could not disclose the source from where the drugs were acquired. The samples were duly signed by the Inspector and countersigned by the petitioner. The samples also bear the signatures of Dharam Pal—an independent witness. A copy of the recovery memorandum in Form No.17 (Exhibit PE) was given to the petitioner. The petitioner issued a receipt (Exhibit PE/1). The price of the sample tablets was paid in cash to the petitioner. In token thereof, the petitioner issued cash memorandum No.1009 dated December 18th, 1992 (Exhibit PF). 9. The samples were sent for testing to Government Analyst, Punjab who vide his report (Exhibit PJ) found that the tablets did not contain any of the drugs which these were supposed to contain. Trimethoprim and Sulphamethoxazole tested negative as these were found to contain zero mg against the claim of 160 mgs and 800 mgs per tablet respectively. The drugs recovered from the petitioner's possession were declared altogether spurious and contained no medicine at all. 10. Trimethoprim and Sulphamethoxazole tested negative as these were found to contain zero mg against the claim of 160 mgs and 800 mgs per tablet respectively. The drugs recovered from the petitioner's possession were declared altogether spurious and contained no medicine at all. 10. When A.R. Salwan, Drugs Inspector appeared in the witness box, he stated that during the search, he found no documentary evidence of any bill or voucher regarding the purchase of drugs by the petitioner. Even despite the fact that the petitioner was given opportunity to produce its purchase bills, he has failed. Not only that, the prosecution has led documentary evidence of recovery memorandums signed by the petitioner, cash memorandum signed by the petitioner and Form No.17 duly counter-signed by the petitioner. The fact that Dharam Pal-an independent witness was not examined in the Court does not create any dent on the case of the prosecution because it is only in those cases, where the deposition of official witnesses does not aspire confidence, the Court looks forward for corroboration from an independent source. But, where the official witnesses are truthful and their testimony is trustworthy, there is no need for the Court to insist on examination of independent witnesses. The petitioner has committed a crime against society by stocking for sale absolutely fake and spurious material branded as drugs and leading unwary purchasers to believe that their ailments would be cured if these drugs were taken by them. Such unscrupulous business men are enemies of the society. 11. In view of what has been stated above, this Court holds that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any legal infirmity and are, therefore, upheld. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is dismissed. 12. The petitioner was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the revision. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. Revision dismissed.