THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1373 of 2009 ORDER: 1 Petitioners herein and another were tried by the learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in C.C.No.51 of 2006 for the offence under section 18 (a) (i) r/w Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (For short ‘the Act’). 2 During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.38 and M.O.1 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. Having assessed the entire evidence available before it, the trial court found all the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 27(d) of the Act, and accordingly sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. As against the said judgment dated 02.04.2009 the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.125 of 2009 and the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur by his judgment dated 12.08.2009 while holding that the complainant failed to establish the guilt of the third accused for the alleged contravention and accordingly acquitted him of the aid offence. However, the learned Additional District Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court in so far as the accused 1 & 2 are concerned. Hence the present revision. 3 Brief facts are that on 22.04.2003 the Drugs Inspector Guntur inspected M/s. Sainath Medical Agencies Raipet, Guntur under due intimation where the proprietor of the said shop furnished the name of the person from whom the stock was received and according to the statement of the proprietor i.e. B. Syam Sundar-A3, the product in question was manufactured by M/s. Lypho-Med-Remedies Pvt., Limited represented by the Director – Vijay H. Lavri and product in question was sent to analyst and the report of the analyst showed that the product in question is not to the specifications displayed and thus the accuse are guilty of the offence. Thereafter the present complaint was filed. 4 Heard. 5 Having gone though the entire material available on record, this court is of the view that the courts below are perfectly justified in finding the petitioners guilty of the offences for which they were tried. From the record it appears that the petitioners were taken into custody immediately after the appellate court pronounced its judgment dismissing the appeal i.e. on 12.08.2009. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that though this court while admitting this revision granted bail on 13.08.2009, the petitioners could be released from out of the jail because of the public holidays and they came out of the jail only on 17.08.2009. From the above it is clear that they were in jail for a period of about six days. As the said sentence imposed by the courts below is imprisonment for one year, and as the petitioners had already undergone a substantive sentence of imprisonment of about six days and inasmuch as the offence relates to the year 2003, this court is of the view that the said sentence itself is sufficient and it is not required to send them to jail further. 6 Accordingly, the said sentence of imprisonment for one year as imposed by the courts below against the petitioners is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioners had already undergone. Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects, this revision stands dismissed. --------------- 29.03.2011 Kvsn