IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1463 OF 2009 Between: The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND Smt. Alapati Vijayalakshmi & 5 others ..... Respondents/Accused The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, under Sections 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed by the State against the judgment, dated 23.09.2008, in C.C.No.1209 of 2000, on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein were discharged for the offence punishable under Sections 18 (a) (i) read with 17 (B) (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, "the Act") punishable under Sections 18B read with Schedule 21 of the Act. 2. The case against Respondent Nos.3 and 4 was abated and the case against Respondent Nos.5 and 6 was quashed by this Court. 3. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: Accused No.2 was the firm which was represented by Accused No.1 who was the Proprietrix on Loan Licence manufactured for sale of M.O.1-spurious drug in the licensed premises of Accused No.4 firm of which Accused No.3 was the Proprietor. It is further alleged that Accused No.6 firm represented by Accused No.5 as its General Power of Attorney holder and competent person by exhibiting or offering for sale and selling of M.O.1 drug which was declared not of standard quality and it was spurious. Further, Accused No.2 firm represented by Accused No.1 along with Accused No.4 firm represented by Accused No.3 have failed to furnish the records of manufacture and sale of M.O.1-drug required to be maintained as per Schedule U of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (for short, “the Rules”) when notice was sent under Section 18 (B) of the Act. Thus, Accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed an offence under Section 18 (B) of the Act punishable under Section 28A of the Act and Rules made thereunder. The Accused Nos.2 & 4 firms were not holding licenses to manufacture for sale of drugs after 31.12.1996 and thus, Accused Nos.1 and 2 by conducting sale of M.O.1-drug to Accused No.6 firm in January, 1997 have committed an offence under Section 18 (c) of the Act (i.e., manufacture for sale, or sell, or stock, or exhibit for sale without a valid license) punishable under Section 27 (b) (ii) of the Act. 4. To substantiate its case, the complainant examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, discharged the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 18 (a) (i) read with 17 (B) (d) of the Act punishable under Sections 18B read with Schedule 21 of the Act and under Section 18 (c) of the Act. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the complainant proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 18 (a) (i) read with 17 (B) (d) of the Act punishable under Sections 18B read with Schedule 21 of the Act and under Section 18 (c) of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 7. Heard the counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. The evidence on record would go to show that P.W.1 worked as a Chemist of Accused No.2 firm, represented by Accused No.1 who was the Proprietor for some period and resigned from the firm with effect from 06.03.2003. Ex.P1 is the letter, dated 06.10.1998, addressed by him informing his service particulars and Ex.P2 is the attested copy of the service certificate issued by the Accused No.1 firm. P.W.2 is another Chemist worked in the Accused No.4 firm. He also resigned from Accused No.4 firm on 05.06.1983. Ex.P3 is the letter, dated 09.10.1998, addressed by him informing his service particulars and Ex.P4 is the attested copy of the service certificate issued by the Accused No.4 firm. So, both P.Ws.1 and 2 have resigned from Accused Nos.2 & 4 firms on 06.03.2003 and 05.06.1993 respectively. The alleged offence occurred on 28.05.1997. The complainant was said to have picked up the sample of drug from Accused No.2 firm and sent the same to the Analyst and obtained report. The Analyst opined that the sample of drug was not of standard quality. The Drug Inspector, who inspected Accused No.2 firm and lifted the sample of drug and conducted other proceedings, was not examined by the complainant inspite of giving several opportunities. 9. Basing on the material available on record, the trial Court found that there is no material to frame charges against the respondents herein. Accordingly they were discharged in view of the fact that the report of the Drug Analyst was not marked. The Drug Inspector has not been examined to show that the sample of drug in question have been lifted and sent to the Public Analyst. Therefore, there is no material to show that the respondents herein have committed the offences punishable under Sections 18 (a) (i) read with 17 (B) (d) of the Act punishable under Sections 18B read with Schedule 21 of the Act and also committed an offence under Section 18 (c) punishable under Section 27 (b) (ii) of the Act. The said order of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 23.09.2008, in C.C.No.1209 of 2000, on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 6th November, 2009 KL