THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 116 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), by the State, is directed against the Judgment, dated 21.10.2008 in C.C. No. 631 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad whereunder and whereby the respondents- Accused 1 to 3 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(d) and Section 22(1)(cca) punishable under Section 23(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the Appeal may be stated as follows: On 04.10.1996, the Drug Inspector, P.W.1 lifted the sample of the drug, Paracetamol tablets Batch No. 26976 manufactured by the accused from the store of the District Medical and Health Officer, Ongole and sent the same for analysis to the Government Analyst, who, after analysis, opined that the sample drug was not of standard quality and therefore, adulterated. After completion of investigation, a complaint was lodged. 3. When the accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and charges under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(d) and Section 22(1)(cca) punishable under Section 23(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 were framed, read over and explained to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked 31 documents i.e. Exs.P1 to P31 and material object, M.O.1. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the mandatory provisions under Sections 20 and 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act were not followed by the complainant and accordingly, acquitted them. Challenging the same, the present Appeal is filed by the State. 6. Heard the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence alleged against the accused and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless a finding is shown to be improper or not based upon any admissible evidence, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the same. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the same. 9. The ground on which the trial Court acquitted the accused was that P.W.1 has not filed any notification appointing him as a Drug Inspector for the area in which the drug in question has been seized, under Section 20 of the Act. Similarly, the complainant has not filed any document to show that P.W.1 has been duly authorized by the Government by a notification, for the purpose of undertaking the exercise of analysis. This Court in M/s Gaba Pharmaceuticals, Hyderabad v. State of A.P.[1], held that the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are mandatory and they have to be followed by the complainant. There is no material filed by the complainant to show that either P.W.1 or the Drug Analyst are duly appointed by the Government by issuing a notification for the purpose of exercising their jurisdiction. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and the said order needs no interference by this Court as there are no compelling or substantial reasons. 10. The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment dated 21.10.2008 in C.C.No.631 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. ---------------------- (K. C. BHANU, J) 1st February 2010 ksld [1] 2007 Drug Cases (DC) 3