THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.957 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 Petitioners were tried by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore in C.C.No.107 of 1998 for the offence under section 18 (C) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules punishable under section 27(b)(ii) and for the offence under section 18-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules punishable under section 28 of the said Act. 2 During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.16 and M.Os.1 to 125 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. Having analysed the entire evidence available before it, the trial court found both the petitioners guilty for violation of section 18 (C) punishable under section 27(b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and accordingly sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. The trial court further found the first petitioner guilty for the violation of the provisions of section 18-A punishable under section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and accordingly sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. As against the said judgment dated 20.02.2001 the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2001 and the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore by his judgment dated 23.04.2004 dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision. 3 Brief facts are that on 15.03.1996 the Drugs Inspector Nellore along with his staff and panch witnesses - P.W.2 and another raided the house bearing D.No.12/1365, Rajendranagar, Nellore at 10.00 a.m. where the petitioners were present at that time. During search, P.W.1 found 125 items of physician samples and are not meant for sale. When questioned, the petitioners replied that they do not possess any valid licence to stock and sell the drugs. Then the second petitioner informed that the said stocks belong to the first petitioner and that the first petitioner also accepted the same. Further, the first petitioner failed to produce any purchase bills for the said drugs and he informed that the drugs are meant for sale to R.M.P. doctors and Medical shops and he failed to inform the names of the persons and the medical shops. A panchanama was got drafted then and there, the stocks were seized and thereafter the present complaint was filed. 4 Heard. 5 Having gone though the entire material available on record, this court is of the view that the courts below are perfectly justified in finding the petitioners guilty of the offences for which they were tried. However, from the record it appears that the petitioners were taken into custody immediately after the appellate court pronounced its judgment dismissing the appeal i.e. on 23.04.2004 and they were released on bail on 18.06.2004. From the above it is clear that they were in jail for a period of about 2 months. As the said sentence imposed by the courts below is imprisonment for six months, and as the petitioners had already undergone a substantive sentence of imprisonment of about two months, this court is of the view that the said sentence itself is sufficient and it is not required to send them to jail further. 6 Accordingly, the said sentence of imprisonment for six months as imposed by the courts below against the petitioners is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioners had already undergone. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects, this revision stands dismissed. -------------- 04.08.2010 Kvsn