HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1446 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, in Crl.A.No.4 of 2002, dated 15.09.2003 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence punishable under Section 27 (b) (ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, imposed against the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 by the learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, in C..C.No.40 of 1993 dated 19.12.2001. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.05.1991 the Drugs Inspector, Kadapa, inspected M/s Sri Laxmi Medical Agency, Kadapa and took sample of ampicillin capsules I.P.500 mg. Batch No.556 and sent it to the analyst and found that the said drugs are spurious drugs. After coming to know that the dealer in Kadapa purchased those drugs from M/s Sri Venkataramana Medical Agencies, Ongole, on 31.08.1991 the Drugs Inspector, Ongole, along with two mediators inspected the premises of A-7 firm and seized the sales books and original sale invoice of Sudha Medial Agencies, Hyderabad, under a cover of panchanama in the presence of G.V.Subba Rao (A-5), partner of A-7 firm and the copies of form No.16 and panchanama were served on A-5, who acknowledged the receipt of the same. When questioned about the source of supply of those drugs, A-5 showed the purchase invoice stating that they purchased the medicines from Sudha Medical Agencies, Hyderabad. After due investigation, the Drugs Inspector filed complaint before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole against 28 accused including the present revision petitioners-A1 and A2 alleging that they contravened Section 17-B(d) and (e) read with Sections 18(a)(e) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file and issued summons to the accused and thereafter A-5, A-8 to A-13, A1-17 to A-27 approached this Court and filed various criminal petitions and this Court quashed the proceedings initiated against them. The case against A-14 to A-16 and A-28 was split up. The learned Magistrate proceeded against A-1 to A-4, A-6 and A-7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P237 and M.Os.1 to 15 to prove the guilt of the accused. Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, found the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 guilty for contravention of Sections 17-B (d), 17-B (e) read with Sections 18 (a) and 18 (c) (two counts) and also found A-4 and A-7 guilty for contravention of Sections 17-B (d), 17-B (e) and Section 18 (c) (one count), which are punishable under Section 27 (b) (ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 and A-4 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and also sentenced A-7 firm to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. However, the trial Court found A-3 and A-6 not guilty of the said offences and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 preferred Crl.A.No.4 of 2002, whereas A-4 and A-7 preferred Crl.A.No.245 of 2001 and the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court vide his common judgment dated 15.09.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 preferred this criminal revision. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 submits that A-4 and A-7 preferred Crl.R.C.No.1428 of 2003 against the very same judgment and this Court, vide its judgment dated 09.09.2005, while setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below against A-4, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against A7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and having perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below, this Court of the view that the Courts below have rightly applied its mind and came to the conclusion that the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 were guilty of the offences with which they were charged. Hence the conviction passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court against the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 is upheld. I see no merit in the revision. As regards the sentence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the revision petitioners had undergone substantive sentence of imprisonment during the course of trial and also after the appellate Court pronounced the judgment and hence the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners appears to be correct. The appeal was dismissed on 15.09.2003 and immediately the petitioners were taken into custody. Thereafter, in this revision, the petitioners were granted bail by this Court on 23.09.2003. Since the occurrence took place as early as in the year 1991 and almost 19 years have passed and during this period the revision petitioners must have repented for what they did and that the revision petitioners had already undergone the sentence of about ten days, this Court is of the view that a lenient view may be taken. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years imposed against the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 by the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by them, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against them. The petitioners are directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other crime. With the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 12.08.2010 Gsn.