THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.240 OF 2010. DATED: 05-02-2010. Between: State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. … Appellant/Complainant and William Christ and three others. … Respondents/Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.240 OF 2010. JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal by the State under Section 378 (1) and (3) Cr.P.C., is preferred against the judgment, dated 30-12-2008, in C.C.No.578 of 2004, on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in acquitting the respondents 1 to 4-A1 to A4 of the offence punishable under Section 27 (b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: On 01-02-2003 the Vigilance Drug Inspector along with other Drug Inspectors and mediators surprised the organization premises of accused and at that time, A4 was present and upon search, they found huge quantity of drugs with the markings “A.P. Government Supply, OGH Supply, Kerala Government supply NOT FOR SALE’ and upon questioning A4 whether any licence is there to stock and sell those drugs, A4 said that his organization is not possessed with any drug licence. Then the drugs were seized under a cover of panchanama and A4 was asked to inform the source of procurement of the seized drugs within three days, but no such information was given by A4. But, on the other hand, he informed about the constitution of Mithrudu organization. Since Mithrudu organization violated Section 18 (c) of the Act for stocking the drugs meant for Government supply and not for sale along with other drugs without a valid drug licence, prosecution was launched. 3. When the accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 27 (b) of the Act for violation of Section 18 (c) of the Act, they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 besides case property, M.Os.1 to 17. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 6. The trial Court upon consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, State preferred this appeal. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused of the offence punishable under Section 27 (b) of the Act for violation of Section 18 (c) of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is legal, correct and proper? 8. Heard the counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment. 9. While dealing with the order of acquittal, though the appellate Court has got full power to re-appreciate the evidence, but it will be slow in interfering with the same in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved and that presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless the findings are improper or illegal or incorrect, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. 10. Under Section 20 of the Act, a notification has to be issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh notifying the area for which a Drug Inspector was appointed to exercise the powers under the Act. Though P.W.1 lifted the drugs in question at the time of inspection and the sample of drug as analysed by the Analyst was found not in conformity with the standards prescribed under the Act, at the same time, P.W.1 has not filed any Gazette Notification appointing her as Drug Inspector in a particular area to exercise the powers. She admitted that she has not filed any Gazette Notification declaring her as a Drug Inspector for the State of Andhra Pradesh so as to enter into the premises and conduct search and seizure of misbranded or sub- standard quality of drugs. Therefore, the trial Court after considering the evidence rightly acquitted the accused and absolutely, there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the same. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 30-12-2008, in C.C.No.578 of 2004, on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:05-02-2010 Hsd