The respondent No.
2 was acquitted of these two offences as the Magistrate found that it was respondent number 1 and number respondent number 2 who was in charge of the business of the firm.
The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has found that Exhibit P.20 companytained the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom the drugs were claimed to have been acquired as M s. Mangilal Jayantilal Company, 65 Princess Street, Second Floor, Bombay, which name and address, according to the prosecution, were fictitious.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.1975 of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
All the respondents were acquitted of the offence under section 18A. The appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka from the order of acquittal of respondent No.
But the Inspector has number been examined, number his report proved.
in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, and sentenced respondents 1 and 3 to pay a fine of Rs.
364 of 1975.
1,000 each, under section 18 c , in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
K. Sen, S.K. Bisaria and V.P. Gupta for the Respondents.
91 of 1976.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BAHARUL ISLAM, J. This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the State of Karnataka.
P.W.3, the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Bombay North Circle, has deposed that he got it verified by his Inspector who submitted a report that the above name and address were fictitious.
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate found respondents 1 and 3, that is, one of the partners and the firm, guilty under Section 18 a ii and Section 18 c of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and sentenced respondent No.
Nettar for the Appellant.
1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 18 a ii and to pay a fine of Rs.
