IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.168 of 2010 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND M/S. Premier Formulations and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.168 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), is filed by the State against the Judgment, dated 14.11.2008, made in C.C.No.630 of 1999, on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the accused/A1, A2 and A4 were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 27(a), 27(d) & 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, "the Act"). 2. The case against respondent No.3/A3 was abated by the trial Court. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: On 24.01.1997, PW.1, who is the Drug Inspector, lifted the samples of the Drug Ibuprofen tablets bearing batch No.1596 manufactured by the accused firm from the office of D.C.H.S., Medical Stores, District Hospital, Mahaboobnagar. The lifted samples were sent for analysis to Government Analyst, who after analysis opined that the sample does not conform to the standards prescribed under the Act. After following the procedure as required under the Act, complaint was lodged. 4. When charges under Sections 27 (a), 27 (d) and 28-A of the Act were framed, read over and explained to the accused, they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-25, besides case property M.O.1. 6. 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 and reported no evidence. 7. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the appointment of analyst with regard to the analysis of the drug is not filed, that therefore, the mandatory provision has not been complied with and accordingly, acquitted them. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 27 (a), 27 (d) and 28-A of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 9. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons viz., the findings are perverse, or contrary to law, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons while interfering with the order of acquittal. 10. It is not in dispute that PW.1 lifted the drug in question from the medical stores of District Hospital, Mahaboobnagar, on 24.01.1997. One sample of drug i.e., Ibuprofen tablet was sent to the drug analyst. The drug analyst after analysis opined that the sample does not conform to the standards prescribed under the Act and the Rules. 11. The trial Court followed the decision of this Court in Gaba Pharmaceuticals Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], wherein it is held that “the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act are mandatory and that they should be followed by the complainant and the appointment of the analyst specifying the local area wherein the analyst can operate should be notified in the official gazette”. But, the official gazette notification appointing the analyst has not been filed. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and hence, there are no substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment, dated 14.11.2008, made in C.C.No.630 of 1999, on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J 04.02.2010 MD [1] 2007 Drug Cases (DC) 3