THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.181 of 2011 JUDGMENT: On the basis of the private complaint filed by the Drug Inspector, Guntur, to the effect that the petitioner was running M/s Vijaya Sai X-ray and Laboratory at D.No.13-1-33, Old Bank Road, Kothapet, Guntur, and they came to know the accused, unauthorizedly, is collecting blood from the donors and the sachets are being sold for the needy and as the said act is without any licence, and it constitutes an offence, the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, has numbered it as C.C.No.258 of 2007. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-35 were marked, besides M.Os.1 to 15. On behalf of the accused, none was examined nor any documents were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, by his judgment, dated 23.08.2010, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 28 and 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (for short ‘the Act’) and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sections 28 of the Act and further, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sections 22(3) of the Act. Against the said judgment, the accused filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.407 of 2010 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, who by his judgment, dated 28.01.2011, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case filed by the accused. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, submitted that the petitioner was in jail for three days and requested this Court to take a lenient view. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 28.01.2011 and immediately, he was sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. Thus, as on today, he suffered imprisonment for three days. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three months and six months for the offences punishable under Sections 28 and 22(3) of the Act, respectively, imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 31st January 2011 DR