Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 388 (PNJ)

Harwant Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-03-01

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - A complaint for violation of Sections 18(c) and 18A of the Act read with Section 27(b) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was filed by the State against the petitioner. 2. As per the averments made in the complaint, the petitioner was present in the clinic as incharge of the clinic and was found in possession of allopathic drugs in different almirahs fitted in the shop for sale/distribution to general public. On inquiry, the petitioner could not show any drugs licence issued for the shop/ clinic or registration certificate of Medical Practitioner, which could authorize him to stock the drugs for sale and distribution. He also failed to disclose the source of acquisition of drugs stocked by him for sale and distribution. Thus, the petitioner was accused of violation of Section 18(c) of the Act by stocking drugs for sale and distribution in his shop/clinic and liable to be punished under Section 27(b) of the Act. It was also alleged that there was violation of Section 18A of the Act also, for not disclosing the source of acquisition of the drugs, which is punishable under Section 28 of the Act. 3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide his judgment dated 27.10.2009 came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the petitioner and held him guilty under Section 27(b) and 28 of the Act. The petitioner was sentenced as under:- “U/s 27(B) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act: Rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, the convict will undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months. “ U/s 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act: Rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, the convict will undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months.” Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention if any undergone by the convict during the investigation, inquiry or trial of this case shall be set off against the terms of imprisonment imposed upon him in this judgment.” 4. Petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court which was dismissed on 13.12.2011. The relevant part of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Amritsar reads thus:- “13. Petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court which was dismissed on 13.12.2011. The relevant part of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Amritsar reads thus:- “13. While arguing the case, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant did not argue anything on merits but requested that the accused being a first offender may be released on probation. Therefore, without assailing the impugned judgment on merits, the sole request is that the accused may be granted the benefit of probation being the first offender but in my opinion, the offence under Drugs and Cosmetic Act is a specific legislation in order to save the society from facing serious repercussions, rising out of the negligencies committed by the manufactures and seller of drugs in whom the society reposes faith while consuming or using their drugs. It is a dangerous practice to store medicines in a premises unknown to the authorities and without a valid licence and to stock for sale sub-standard medicine in hazardous endangering the life of human beings. Therefore, the persons who indulge in such like offences as mentioned in Drugs and Cosmetics Act are not entitled to the relief of probation. Therefore, due to aforesaid reasons, no fault can be found in the findings of the learned trial court by convicting the accused-appellant. 14 Under these circumstances, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. However, before parting with this judgment, it is necessary to consider the request made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant Sh. A.S. Randhawa, Advocatecounsel for the accused-appellant who stated that the accused is a first offender and that a lenient view may be taken in this regard and he may be released on probation. Keeping in view the allegations against the accused, I do not deem it a fit case to release the accused-appellant on probation. The appellant be taken into custody and sent to jail to undergo the remaining sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. The lower court file be returned and the appeal file be consigned to the record room.” 5. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner has filed the instant revision. 6. The appellant be taken into custody and sent to jail to undergo the remaining sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. The lower court file be returned and the appeal file be consigned to the record room.” 5. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner has filed the instant revision. 6. In the first instance, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made submissions on merits, stating that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was owner of the clinic from where the alleged drugs were found and moreover, there was no evidence, such as any cash memo/bills etc., to connect the drugs with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further taken the stand that the petitioner was merely a worker in the said shop. It is further contention of the learned counsel that even no independent witness was joined, despite of the fact that it was a busy bazar and day time. However, it is a matter of record that under Section 313 CrPC, the petitioner had denied all the allegations made by prosecution and had claimed that he was falsely involved in the case. He had also opted to lead defence evidence, but his defence evidence was closed without examining any witness. Even no specific defence was taken by the petitioner, as suggested before this Court, during the course of arguments. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment. 7. Not only this, the relevant para of the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Amritsar (quoted above) clearly depicts that before the appellate authority, no arguments on merits of the case were addressed on behalf of the petitioner and merely a prayer was made that the petitioner be released on probation, which was declined. Admittedly, Section 27(b) of the Act prescribes a minimum punishment. Thus, even on this account, no fault can be found in the impugned judgments. 8. Dismissed. ------------------