Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1131 (AP)

Alapati Babu Sudhakar v. State Of A P

2024-08-19

V SRINIVAS

body2024
ORDER : V Srinivas, J. Assailing the judgment dated 25.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.209 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused No.4 by the judgment dated 08.10.2009 in C.C.No.170 of 1997 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru, for the offence under section 18(a)(i) r/w.17B(d) punishable under Section 27(c) and section 18(a)(i) r/w.17(b) punishable under Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the petitioner/accused No.4 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 26.08.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2587 of 2011. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: i). In the month of March 1996, Accused Nos.1 to 3, who were working at Eluru as medical representatives of M/s.Oscar Pharmaceutical, M/s.Karnataka Anti Biotechs and M/s.Pharmad Limited respectively along with petitioner/accused No.4 conspired together to gain illegally by marketing spurious ‘Gramogyl’ suspension, which is in great demand and contacted accused Nos.5 and 6, who are licensed manufacturer and at the instance of petitioner, accused Nos.1 to 3 entered into an agreement with them to manufacture 30 ml. liquid suspension bottles similar to Gramogyl of M/s.Oscar Pharmaceuticals Private Limited without any labels and details of manufacture on their bottles. ii). Then accused Nos.5 and 6 manufactured the said drug and used to transport the same to the petitioner/accused No.4 through Navatha Transport from Madras to Eluru and kept the same at the house of accused No.3 and affix the printed labels imitating original Gramogyl drug, which is an oral suspension patented and manufactured by M/s.Oscar Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, New Delhi, containing the ingredients of Nalidixic Acid and Metronidazole Benzoate. This drug is used for the treatment of Diarrhea in children. iii). On 07.05.1996, on information, P.W.1-Drug Inspector, Eluru conducted raid in the house of accused No.1 and found 118 bottles of spurious Gramogyl, one box containing 110 X 30 ml of spurious Gramogyl and another box containing 285 X 30 ml Roscilox which is an expired drug and also found SRMT consignee L.R.No.1257712, dated 06.05.1996 in the name of accused No.1. On 07.05.1996, on information, P.W.1-Drug Inspector, Eluru conducted raid in the house of accused No.1 and found 118 bottles of spurious Gramogyl, one box containing 110 X 30 ml of spurious Gramogyl and another box containing 285 X 30 ml Roscilox which is an expired drug and also found SRMT consignee L.R.No.1257712, dated 06.05.1996 in the name of accused No.1. Then, the complainant lifted the samples under the cover of Ex.P.6 panchanama. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have jointly purchased the oral suspension bottles without any labels from accused Nos.4 to 6 and affixed the labels of Gramogyla suspension. Accused No.4 being a licensed wholesale dealer purchased the medicines without any label, which is spurious and misbranded drug. 4. The compliant was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.170 of 1997 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru, after fullfledged Trial, vide judgment dated 08.10.2009, found the accused No.4 guilty of the charges under Section 18(a)(i) r/w.17B(d) punishable under Section 27(c) and section 18(a)(i) r/w.17(b) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of two (2) months, also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one month, for the respective offences. Both the sentences imposed against the accused No.4 shall run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused No.4 preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.209 of 2009, before the Court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 25.08.2011, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused No.4. 7. Heard Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court?” 9. 7. Heard Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 submits that the petitioner is not having any bad intention; that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged agreement of supply of the drug; that the petitioner was under the impression that the other accused only ordered the Gargoyle suspension and the said consignment is self-delivered; that the confession before the complainant is inadmissible; that except Ex.P.33, there is no evidence to show that petitioner has a role in the alleged offences; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective and erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that on information, on 07.05.1996, P.W.1 searched the house of accused No.1 and seized M.Os.5 and 6 drug as well Ex.P.5 S.R.M.T. consignee copy; that accused No.5 under Ex.P.32 letter booked 192 boxes containing 100 bottles each with 30 ml. suspension on 09.03.1996 through Navatha Transport and he sent the sealed bottles without any labels as requested by the petitioner/accused No.4 and he has not maintained any record of manufacturing and testing the suspension; that the petitioner made categorical statement under Ex.P.33 admitting the offence; that the trial Court as well Sessions Court after thoroughly appreciating the material on record rightly convicted the petitioner for the said charges, thereby, the present revision has no merits. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that based on Ex.P.33 statement of petitioner as well statement of accused No.5 under Ex.P.32, which are not admissible in the eye of law, only recorded the conviction against the petitioner. 12. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that based on Ex.P.33 statement of petitioner as well statement of accused No.5 under Ex.P.32, which are not admissible in the eye of law, only recorded the conviction against the petitioner. 12. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of pronouncements that the Drug Inspector is not a Police Officer, the statements made or given to the Drug Inspector by the accused is admissible in evidence and not hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 13. On perusal of Ex.P.33 discloses that the petitioner is a licensed drug distributor and that it is in the name of Sri Lalitha Devi Medicals and that entire Ex.P.33 statement was written on the letter head of said medicals, more so, the said Ex.P.33 runs into five pages and all the five pages is in the handwriting of petitioner/accused No.4 and that it contains facts of payments, sending of consignment slips, monies through himself, involving himself in the unaccounted drug manufacturing and distributing activity. Even on perusal of Ex.P.32, it is categorical that the unlabeled suspension bottles of 192 boxes were supplied to the petitioner and no tests or accounts were maintained for the consignments under Exs.P.14 and P.25. More so, under Ex.P.37, accused No.3 also stated about the involvement of petitioner and placing contraband of 192 cartons of drugs at his house. 14. More so, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner given his statement on 19.06.1996 at Eluru and on the other hand, the accused No.5 given his statement on 11.06.1996 itself at Madras and those statements were in the handwriting of accused respectively and they were not recorded while they were in detention or custody of the complainant. Furthermore, it is not the contention of the petitioner before the trial Court that the said statement was recorded under threat or influence. Thereby, the same can be considered as voluntary and relied upon. 15. It is also not in dispute that the sample seized from the accused was sent for analysis and under Ex.P.34 report the drug sample does not contain Nalidixic acid and Metronidazole Benzoade. It is also to be noticed that the grounds of appeal itself clearly shows the involvement of the petitioner in the offence. 15. It is also not in dispute that the sample seized from the accused was sent for analysis and under Ex.P.34 report the drug sample does not contain Nalidixic acid and Metronidazole Benzoade. It is also to be noticed that the grounds of appeal itself clearly shows the involvement of the petitioner in the offence. 16. Viewing from any angle, the statement of petitioner as well accused No.3 and 5, the consignment receipts under Exs.P.14 and P.25 and Ex.P.34 analyst report categorically established the involvement of petitioner in getting manufacture the drug which is not of standard quality with substituted ingredients imitating the original Gramoguyl oral suspension without labels and distributing through accused Nos.1 to 3 by affixing said company labels. 17. The Trial Court as well Sessions Court by rightly appreciating the material on record categorically held that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the petitioner/accused No.4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the said charges. 18. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Trial Court as well Sessions Court, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by both the Courts below. There is no material before this Court to discard the findings recorded by both the Courts below. 19. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the well-articulated judgment of the Sessions Court and thereby, this revision has no merits. Consequently, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 25.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.209 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The petitioner/accused No.4 is directed to surrender before the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru, to serve the sentence imposed, if not, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take steps against the petitioner. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.