IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1721 of 2009 Between: The State of A.P. rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Appellant/Petitioner AND M/s.Cosmochem Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., 53, Chandulal Bowli, Secunderabad, rep by the Managing Director, K.Sathi Reddy And another. …Respondents/Accused The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1721 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is directed against the judgment dated 25.07.2008 made in C.C.No.646 of 2005 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, respondents/A-1 and A-2 were found not guilty for the contravention of Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (‘the Act’, for brevity), and contravention of Section 18(a)(i) punishable under Section 27(d) and contravention of Section 18(a)(vi) read with Rule 74(d) r/w schedule ‘U’ punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present criminal appeal may be stated as follows: Accused No.1 (A-1) is a firm named M/s.Cosmochem Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., situated at 53, Chandulal Bowli, Secunderabad. Accused No.2 (A-2) is the Managing Director of the said firm. A surprise inspection was made by P.W.1 – Drugs Inspector – the complainant, into the firm and he found the samples of drug named ‘Cosmozyme’, Batch No.S061121, Manufacturing date 12/2001, Expiry date 5/2003. The samples were sent to the Government Analyst for analysis. The Government Analyst issued a report after testing the sample that the drug in question manufactured by A-1 was not of standard quality, and thereafter, it revealed that A-1 was not granted any permission to manufacture the drug in question and to have possession of it. Hence, a case is taken on the file against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 27(d) of the Act. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to tried. 4. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14, besides marking the case property – M.O.1. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was examined on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that P.W.1 has no jurisdiction to the area in which A-1 firm was situated and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, present appeal is filed. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 27(d) of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 7. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that Ex.P.13 – Attested copy of Gazette notification in respect of appointment of P.W.1 as Drugs Inspector, would clearly go to show that P.W.1 is having jurisdiction over the area, in which the A-1 firm was situated, as he was duly appointed by the Government by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette for the purpose of taking samples in the zone, in which the A-1 firm was situated. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, the Government has to issue a notification in the Official Gazette appointing a person to be the inspector for such areas, as the case may be, assigned by the State Government, and that following the decision of this Court made in Criminal Revision Case No.1121 of 2002, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. 9. Ex.P.13 is the only document filed by P.W.1 duly appointing him as the Drugs Inspector under Section 21 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act reads as under. 21.Inspectors:- (1) The Central Government or a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications to be Inspectors for such areas as may be assigned to them by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. (2) The powers which may be exercised by an Inspector and the duties which may be performed by him, the drugs or (classes or drugs or cosmetics or classes of cosmetics) in relation to which and the condition, limitations or restrictions subject to which, such powers and duties may be exercised or performed shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) No person who has any financial interest (in the import, manufacture or sale or drugs or cosmetics) shall be appointed to be an Inspector under this section (4) Every Inspector shall be deemed to be a public servant, within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and shall be officially subordinate to such authority (having the prescribed qualifications) as the Government appointing him may specify in this behalf. A perusal of Section 21 of the Act goes to show that the appointment of Drug Inspector can only be done through a notification in the Official Gazette and not otherwise. Such a notification should also indicate the area in which such Drug Inspector can operate or exercise his powers. 10. Even P.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination that he was not having any document to show that he was appointed to take samples in the Secunderabad area limits. Ex.P.13 does not indicate that he was appointed for the area in which the A-1 firm is situated. Therefore, P.W.1 lacks inherent jurisdiction to inspect the premises in question. Hence, the inspection made by P.W.1 and drawing of samples from the A-1 firm is without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 21 of the Act. 11. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of the acquittal. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 25.07.2008 made in C.C.No.646 of 2005 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. ________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU December 14, 2009 BVV