THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1768 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 This revision was already dismissed as withdrawn by this court on 13.02.2004. Thereafter the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2366 of 2004 to recall the said order and a learned Judge of this court on 26.03.2004 recalled the said order and this revision is restored to file. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that the Drugs Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioner herein and two others alleging that they were running medical shop in the name and style of M/s. Sai Ranjani Medical and General Stores at Lalapet, without having valid licence and that on information on 02.06.2000 the Drugs Inspector surprised the said medical shop and found the first accused running the said medical shop. When questioned the first accused produced a Xerox copy of licence granted under certificate No.7423 and on enquiry it was found that the said licence was granted to M/s.Ayyappa Santhosh Medical and General Stores, 11/A, Badam Apartments, Chaitanyapuri, Ranga Reddy District. Therefore, as per the prescribed procedure, the Drugs Inspector recovered the medicines in the shop and collected samples from the shop and sent the samples for examination. On receipt of the Analyst report, the Drugs Inspector filed the complaint. The same was taken on file as C.C.No.964 of 2000 by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad for the offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for the contravention of Section 18(C) of the said Act. 3 The trial court having analysed the entire evidence let in by the complainant came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced A.1 to stand in the court till raising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, sentenced A.2 to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month and sentenced A.3 to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 24.09.2003 passed by the trial court, the accused 2 and 3 preferred Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2003 and the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad by his judgment dated 13.11.2003 dismissed the said appeal. Questioning the said judgment the third accused in the case preferred this revision. 4 Heard. 5 As seen from the record, the appeal was dismissed on 13.11.2003 and the petitioner was taken into custody on the same day itself and it is only after admission of this revision and granting of bail by this court on 28.11.2003, the petitioner came out of the jail. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for a period more than 15 days. As the said sentence imposed by the courts below is only simple imprisonment for six months, and as the petitioner was in jail for about 15 days this court takes a lenient view. 6 Accordingly, the said sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. __________________ 28th October 2010 Kvsn