Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1497 (TS)

Drugs Inspector v. Dushyanth Reddy

2025-11-13

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
JUDGMENT : J. Sreenivas Rao, J. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Medak, in C.C.No.362 of 2011, dated 10.11.2016, whereby the respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 32 and for violation of Rule 65(4)(4) r/w Sections 18(a)(vi), 18(A) and Section 27(d), and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘DC Act’). 2. Heard Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri K.Siddharth, learned counsel representing Dr.Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18.12.2009, LWs.1 to 3 proceeded to Gomaram Village and inspected the medical shop of the accused, M/s.Vinayaka Medical Hall, Door No. 3-77/A. The accused was present. After informing him the purpose of their visit, the drug officials inspected the premises and found 58×50×1 ml Oxytocin injections, Batch No.215, manufactured by Popular Industries, stocked for sale without a valid licence. The complainant seized the said injections under Form No. 16 under the cover of a panchanama prepared in the presence of the accused and mediators. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the respondent/accused committed the offences punishable under Section 32 and for violation of Rule 65(4)(4) r/w Section 18(a)(vi), 18(A) and Section 27(d), and 28 of the DC Act. He further submitted that the prosecution discharged its initial burden by producing both oral and documentary evidence on record. However, the learned Magistrate, without properly appreciating the same, erroneously acquitted the respondent. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to consider the ingredients constituting the said alleged offences and acquitted the respondent merely on the ground that PWs.1 and 2, who are panch witnesses, turned hostile. The deposition of PW-3, reveals that he seized Oxytocin injections bearing batch No.2015, manufactured by Popular Industries, from the premises of the respondent, who is not having a valid licence to sell the said drugs. The respondent himself stated that he was a partner of the firm and his brother had transferred the partnership in his favour, after which he continued to run the shop. Therefore, the absence of a licence in his name ought not to have resulted in his acquittal. The respondent himself stated that he was a partner of the firm and his brother had transferred the partnership in his favour, after which he continued to run the shop. Therefore, the absence of a licence in his name ought not to have resulted in his acquittal. The impugned judgment of the learned Magistrate is contrary to the settled principles of law and is liable to be set aside and the respondent/accused is liable to be convicted for the above said offences. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Magistrate, after properly evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, rightly acquitted the respondent by giving cogent findings. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate specifically held that PW-3, who is a public servant and Drug Inspector, failed to establish the alleged seizure of the material from the respondent’s shop. Even according to the prosecution, Exs.P6 and P7 do not stand in the name of the respondent, and he was not the licence holder of the shop on the date of the alleged panchanama. Hence, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Magistrate, and the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that the prosecution alleged that PW-3 seized Oxytocin injections bearing batch No.2015, manufactured by Popular Industries, from the premises of the respondent in the presence of PWs.1 and 2. According to the prosecution, the respondent, without having a valid licence, engaged in the sale of the seized material. The impugned judgment further discloses that PWs.1 and 2, who are panch witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. On behalf of the prosecution, Exs.P6 and P7 were marked. However, those documents do not stand in the name of the respondent. The prosecution also failed to establish that the premises belonged to the respondent or he was running the medical shop. On behalf of the prosecution, Exs.P6 and P7 were marked. However, those documents do not stand in the name of the respondent. The prosecution also failed to establish that the premises belonged to the respondent or he was running the medical shop. The learned Magistrate, on consideration of the documentary evidence, concluded that PW-3, the Drug Inspector, failed to prove the alleged seizure from the respondent’s shop and his oral evidence is silent about the Oxytocin injections and the prosecution has failed to prove that the said drug is harmful. Consequently, the learned Magistrate, by giving cogent findings, acquitted the respondent for the alleged offences through the impugned judgment. 7. In cases of acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another , [(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536] held that while dealing with an appeal against acquitaal, the appellant Court has to consider whether the trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. 8. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh , [(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 45] the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows: “70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court’s decision. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court’s decision. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when: i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong: ii) The trial court’s decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii) The trial court’s judgment is likely to result in “grave miscarriage of justice”; iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v) The trial court’s judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.” 9. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered since they are based on record and reasonable. Only on the basis of confession, conviction cannot be recorded as rightly held by the learned Magistrate. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned Judgment of the learned Magistrate. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State fails and is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.