THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1728 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Criminal Appeal No.140 of 2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimnagar whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the leaned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile, Karimnagar, in C.C.No.208 of 2000, this revision is preferred by the petitioner – sole accused. 2 Brief facts are that the complainant Mr. L.Pramod Reddy who worked as Drug Inspector inspected the medical store being run under the name and style of M/s. Jayasree Medical and General Stores, Karimnagar on 05.02.1996 and found the petitioner conducting business. During the course of inspection the complainant found 44 varieties of medicines, which were labelled as ‘physician samples not for sale’ stocked along with other saleable drugs kept in the said premises. The petitioner failed to disclose the source of supply of those medicines. Then the complainant seized the above referred 44 varieties of drugs listed in Form 16 under a cover of panchanama and he served copies of panchanama and Form 16 to the petitioner under acknowledgement. On the date of inspection itself, the complainant addressed a letter under registered post with acknowledgement due requiring the petitioner to disclose the source of supply from whom he had acquired the seized drugs. The petitioner in his reply dated 19.02.1996 stated that he received the above referred drugs from Dr. G. Hari Kishan, who had handed over the same so as to give them to Rekurthi Eye Hospital run under the control of Lions Club, Karimnagar. Subsequently the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate against the petitioner for violation of Rules 65 (18) r/w 18 (a) (VI) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 3 In support of his case the complainant himself got examined as P.W.1 and one panch witness as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 and M.Os.1 to 44. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate having analysed the said evidence found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for violation of Rule 65 (18) of the said Rules, and accordingly convicted and sentenced the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. As against the said judgment of the trial court dated 01.12.2000 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.140 of 2000 and the learned Sessions Judge, Karimnagar while confirming the said conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision. 4 Heard the counsel for the petitioner. 5 The alleged offence is of the year 1996 and the appellate court pronounced its judgment on 06.11.2003. This court while admitting the revision, granted bail to the petitioner on 14.11.2003. Thus the petitioner is in jail for nearly ten days. Further, the petitioner is roaming around the courts since 05.02.1996. Hence he must have suffered a lot both mentally and physically. In my considered opinion, this trauma itself is sufficient for the petitioner for the offence committed by him. 6 Accordingly, the period of one year imprisonment imposed by the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. Excepting the above modification, this revision, in all other aspects is dismissed. -------------- Kvsn 15.07.2010