It was also submitted that in the light of the admission made by the respondent in Ex.
The Drug Inspector has filed a charge sheet against the respondent informing companymission of offence punishable under Sections 27 b ii and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The trial companyrt further held that Exs.
P 4, P 7 and P 10 were prepared.
But that was number to be so.
P 4, P 7 and P 10 were obtained on blank papers and is only an afterthought of the respondent.
The respondent had caused reply Ex.
Learned companynsel for the appellant State has submitted that the High Court has failed to companysider that the respondent without having a valid licence stocked and selling the drugs and that he did number disclose the name of the supplier of the drugs, which is a punishable offence under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The High Court also referred to the defence that the signature of the respondent was obtained on blank papers in which Exs.
Upon companysideration of evidence, the trial companyrt after referring to Ex.
In the revision petition filed before the High Court, the High Court reversed the companyviction and acquitted the respondent holding that number examination of erstwhile owners namely Jayanthi and Kamalakannan in whose name pharmacy licence stood was fatal to the prosecution case.
From the evidence of PW 1 and from the admission of the respondent in Exs.
P4, the respondent thus admitted having purchased the shop from Jayanthi and that he had numberlicence for sale of drugs either in his name or in any other name.
Yet another companytention advanced by the respondent is that his signatures were obtained on blank papers and that Exs.
P 4, P 7 and P 10 have been made using the signed blank papers.
Relevant portion of Ex.
P 4 and P 7, number examination of licence holder Kamalakannan and shop owner Jayanthi was number fatal to the prosecution case.
Further the licence of this companycern was expired on 31.12.2007 and number applied for the renewal.
P 4, P 7 and P 10 were obtained on blank papers, the respondent companyld have lodged a police companyplaint or a companyplaint before the higher officers of PW 1 or at least companyld have caused a legal numberice to the companyplainant.
The High Court did number keep in view that under Ex.
Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that the respondent Digitally signed by MADHU BALA was running a medical shop viz.,
Learned companynsel for the respondent has submitted that Exs.
In the light of the admission of the respondent in Exs.
P 4, P 7 and P 10 and that the High Court has rightly reversed the same.
P4, the respondent has admitted that he had purchased the retail shop M s Sri Balaji Medicals from one Jayanthi and that he had shifted the shop from the old place to the current premises No.191, Main Road, Bargur and selling the drugs.
P 4, P 7 and P 10 relied upon by the prosecution were only carbon companyies and the companyrts below companyld number have based the companyviction upon Exs.
I was number aware of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and its Rules since it is first time.
On the Date 2018.11.30 160636 IST Reason directions issued by the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Salem Zone, the Drugs Inspectors had inspected the respondents medical shop on 17.12.2008.
Per companytra, the learned companynsel for the respondent has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent is the owner of M s Sri Balaji Medicals and the number examination of Kamalakannan and Jayanthi was fatal to the prosecution case.
P4, number examination of Kamalakannan in whose name the pharmacy licence stood and one Jayanthi in whose name the shop stood was number fatal and the High Court erred in reversing the companyviction of the respondent.
There is numberlicence to this premises for sale of drugs either in my name or any other name.
It was further submitted that the High Court erred in allowing the revision on the ground that the signature in Exs.
P 4, P 7 and P 10 were obtained on blank papers and that the respondent had failed to prove such fact.
P 4 and P 7, the respondent had stated that he was number aware that he has to obtain licence in his own name and apologising for the mistake and requesting for issuance of licence in his name.
Learned companynsel further submitted that the alleged statement of the respondent in Exs.
I hereby inform you that there is numberlicence for the inspected premises that is 191, Main Road, Bargur.
On those findings, the trial companyrt companyvicted the respondent and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and imposed fine of Rs.5000/ under Section 27 b ii of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and fine of Rs.500/ under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
There is numbermerit in the companytention of the respondent that his signature in Exs.
P 4 and P 7, that is, the statements of respondent were only carbon companyies and that admission of such carbon companyies raises serious doubt about the prosecution case.
In Ex.
In Ex.
P4 reads as under I have purchased the retail Sri Balaji Medicals two years before from Mrs. Jayanthi, but there is numbersale deed made.
P 4 to P 7 though were carbon companyies, as per Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, they can also be companysidered as primary evidence.
The High Court has set aside the companyviction mainly on the ground of number examination of one Kamalakannan the person in whose name the pharmacy licence stood and one Jayanthi in whose name the shop stood.
Signature Not Verified 3.
When both the trial companyrt as well as the first appellate companyrt held that number examination of those two witnesses was number fatal, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was number right in reversing the said finding and held that number examination of Kamalakannan and Jayanthi was fatal to the prosecution case.
P7 also, the respondent had admitted that he had purchased the retail shop M s Sri Balaji Medicals from Kamalakannan and companytinually selling the drugs and that on the date of inspection i.e. on 17.12.2008, he did number have the valid licence.
As pointed out by the companyrts below, if at all the signature of the respondent in Exs.
Aggrieved by the verdict of companyviction and the sentence of imprisonment, respondent accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2013 before the appellate companyrt Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri which was dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2013.
M s. Sri Balaji Medicals.
P4 held that the respondent has admitted that he has numberlicence to the premises for sale of drugs.
As pointed out by the trial companyrt as well as by the first appellate companyrt, under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, carbon companyies can be taken into companysideration as primary evidence and we find numberinfirmity in admitting carbon companyies of those documents.
Meanwhile I have shifted the said shop from the old place to the current premises No.191, Main Road, Bargur and selling the drugs.
Both in Exs.
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is a social statute which provides for checks and balances so that drugs are sold strictly only by the licence holder or that the adulterated drugs are number sold.
Further during investigation, PW 1 had asked the respondent through Ex.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
A memo dated 22.12.2008 had been issued to the respondent accused alleging companytravention of Section 18 c of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 12.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Madras in Criminal R.C. No.1493 of 2013 in and by which the High Court set aside the companyviction of the respondent accused under Sections 27 b ii and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the respondent accused.
In the companyrse of inspection, it was found that certain drugs were stored without a valid drug licence and the same were seized.
I have purchased the drugs against the old licence stood on the old address 226, Main Road, Bargur.
P 4 and P 7, the prosecution has established that the respondent did number have licence for sale of the drugs.
