Crl. Revision No. 562 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 562 of 2002 Date of Decision: August 11, 2010 Ravinder Kumar ........Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 27(b) (ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda vide judgment dated 2.6.1999. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 28 of the Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated 11.3.2002. Hence, the present revision petition. The prosecution story in brief as noticed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda in para 2 of the impugned judgment reads as under :- Crl. Revision No. 562 of 2002 2 “ Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 17.7.1993 Shri Ajay Singla, Drugs Inspector, Bathinda, received secret information against the accused that he, Dr. R.K. Bawa owner of M.B. Nursing Home is doing illegal medical practice and is keeping and selling medicines without any licence. Thereafter Shri Ajay Singla, Drugs Inspector accompanied by Shri Sukhmander Singh, PCS, DOIG Bathinda, Dr. Jagtar Singh, DHO, Civil Hospital, Bathinda, and Shri Naginder Parshad Peon raided the shop of Ravinder Kumar accused known as M.B. Nursing Home, Bibiwala Chowk, Bathinda, where Ravinder Kumar appellant-accused was found present. Gurjan Singh PW was joined from there. On enquiry Ravinder Kumar accused could not produce any licence for stocking the medicines and exhibiting for sale. He even failed to produced the bills for the purchase of medicines, and also failed to give names, addressed and other particulars of persons/firm, from whom he purchased the medicines. Then Shri Ajay Singla, Drugs Inspector inspected the shop of accused in the presence of above said persons. Nine types of medicines and two documents lying there were taken into possession vide seizure memo on form 16, attested by PWs. As such the accused-appellant violated the provisions of Section 18- C and 18-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act punishable under Section 27 (b)(ii) and Section 28 of the said act. As such, a ruqa was sent to the police station by the Drugs Crl. Revision No. 562 of 2002 3 Inspector, on the basis of which formal case was registered the appellant-accused. The police investigation the case, recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of the investigation, the challan against the appellant- accused was presented in the court under Section 27 and 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and 419 IPC. During the course of arguments, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him. The petitioner has undergone 68 days of actual sentence and is facing criminal proceedings since the year 1994. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of the proviso of Section 27(b)(ii) “lesser punishment than the minimum prescribed” can be given in a fit case. Petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family. Fine as imposed by the trial Court has already been deposited by the petitioner. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner to already undergone by him. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 27(b) (ii) and 28 of the Act is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) August 11, 2010 JUDGE Anand