THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.655 of 2010 ORDER: 1 Petitioner herein and another were tried by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur in C.C.No.306 of 2002 for the offence under section 18 (C) R/W 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 (For short ‘the Act’). 2 During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.Os.1 to 35 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. Having analysed the entire evidence available before it, the trial court found both the accused guilty for violation of section 18 (C) punishable under section 27(b) (ii) and section 18 (A) r/w 28 of the Act, and accordingly sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. As against the said judgment dated 03.03.2009 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2009 and the learned Sessions Judge, Eluru by his judgment dated 31.03.2010 dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision. 3 Brief facts are that on 09.08.2000 the Drugs Inspector Bhimavaram along with his staff the clinic of the petitioner where the petitioner was treating the patients and the other accused was assisting the petitioner. During search, P.W.1 found some medicines. When questioned, the petitioners replied that they do not possess any valid licence to stock and sell the drugs. Further, the petitioner failed to produce any purchase bills for the said drugs. 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 petitioner guilty of the offences for which he was tried and convicted. However, from the record it appears that the petitioner was taken into custody immediately after the appellate court pronounced its judgment dismissing the appeal i.e. on 31.03.2010 and this court admitted this revision and granted bail to the petitioner on 01.04.2010. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though this court while admitting this revision granted bail on 01.04.2010, the petitioner could be released from out of the jail immediately because of the typographical mistake crept in the order dated 01.04.2010 and he was released on bail only after 07.04.2010. From the above it is clear that they were in jail for a period of about 8 days . As the said sentence imposed by the courts below is imprisonment for one year, and as the petitioner had already undergone a substantive sentence of imprisonment of about 8 days, 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 one year as imposed by the courts below against the petitioner is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects, this revision stands dismissed. --------------- 29.03.2011 Kvsn