THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.121 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal, under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {Cr.P.C.}, by the State is directed against the judgment dated 21.10.2008 in C.C.No.626 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the respondents/accused 1 and 2 were found not guilty of the offences under Sections 27 (d) and 27 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 {“the Act” for brevity}. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 19.02.1997, P.W.1 inspected the medical store at District Medical & Health Officer, Guntur (DM & HO) and picked up Ibuprofen Tablets IP Batch No.155116 and one portion of the seized sample was sent to the Government Analyst, after observing necessary formalities. The Government Analyst opined that the sample is not of a standard quality. On enquiry, the DM & HO informed that the drug was supplied by accused firm. The accused admitted that the drug was manufactured by the accused firm. Thereafter, the Drug Inspector seized the drugs under panchanama and lodged the complaint. 3. When a charge under Sections 27 (d) and 27 (c) of the Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P28 including Ex.P1A, besides case properties MOs.1 and 2. No oral evidence was adduced but Exs.D1 to D3 were marked on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to follow the mandatory provisions under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act for the offences punishable under Sections 27 (d) and 27 (c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused for the offences under Sections 27 (d) and 27 (c) of the Act beyond all reasonable doubt? 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is very clear that the Drug in question was manufactured by the accused and the report of the Public Analyst-Ex.P4 would clearly go to show that the drug is not of standard quality. Hence, she prays to set aside the judgment of the Court below. 8. This Court in a decision reported in M/s. Gaba Pharmaceuticals, Hyderabad and another v. State of A.P.[1], held that the provisions of Section 20 and 21 of the Act, which are mandatory, should be followed by the complainant; the appointment of the analyst specifying the local area wherein the analyst can operate should be published and prosecution has to produce such gazette notification specifying the area. When the complainant failed to produce such evidence, there is inherent defect in complainant’s case. Similarly, under section 21 of the Act, it must be shown that the Public Analyst was appointed for a particular local area to exercise his jurisdiction under gazette notification. Absolutely there is no evidence produced to show that P.W.1 has got jurisdiction to inspect the premises in question by virtue of any Gazette Notification. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Court below. 9. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment dated 21.10.2008 in C.C.No.626 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 28th January 2010 RRB [1] 2007 Dug Cases (DC) 3