THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.886 of 2004 JUDGMENT: 1. This revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against judgment made in Crl.A.No.76 of 2002 dated 19.5.2004 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), Khammam partly allowing the appeal and reducing sentence to (4) months from (8) months imposed in C.C.No.139 of 1997 dated 22.2.1999 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, Khammam district. 2. The prosecution case against the revision petitioner-Accused (for short ‘the accused’) is that on 8.5.1995, the Drug Inspector, Kothagudem inspected the Medical Shop run by the Accused and found some drugs with lables ‘physician’s sample not for sale’ which were meant for free distribution in the shop which was in contravention of Rule 65(18) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’) and hence the drugs were seized under a cover of panchanama. 3. The accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act and after examining the matter, the trial Court held that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 65(18) of the Act and convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for (8) months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, whereas aggrieved by the judgment, the Accused preferred Crl.A.No.76 of 2002 and the appellate Court after considering the matter, reduced the sentence from (8) months to (4) months while keeping intact the fine clause and being aggrieved by that, the present revision is preferred. 4. Though the matter is coming up under the caption ‘for orders’, there is no representation on behalf of the revision petitioner, hence arguments on his side closed. 5. It is the case of the revision petitioner in the memorandum of grounds that that the Court below failed to consider the fact that the medicines were not belonging to the accused and they belonged to some other Doctor who was neighbour to his shop. 6. Now the point for consideration in this case is whether the Courts below properly examined the matter and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the judgments passed are tenable or not. 7. Significantly, the accused is not denying the seizure and contravention of the said legal provisions, whereas his claim is that they were belonging to a Doctor neighbour to him, which he failed to substantiate and hence the conviction imposed prevails. 8. I have gone through the record. It clearly provides that the Courts below have properly examined the matter and arrived at correct conclusions. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 27.6.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.886 of 2004 27.6.2011