1 appln4596-09 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4596 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Janak Kayantilal Kothari and others .. Respondents Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for the Applicant-State Mr. S.M. Oak i/by Sagar Joshi for Respondent No.1, Mr. R.R. Arjunwadkar for Respondent Nos. 4,5 and 7 CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 21st January, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 21.10.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane in Criminal Case No. 131 of 1994. The accused were prosecuted for the offences under sections 18(a)(i), 78(c),(ii), 18(c), 18(a) (a) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 3. Perused the impugned judgment and order. It has been rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondents that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 23 read with Rule 55 of the Drug and Cosmetics Act as discussed in para 15 of the impugned judgment and order. It is seen that the prosecution 2 appln4596-09 witness No.2 admitted that he had not obtained receipt from the accused No.1 for purchasing samples. The very basic requirement is found breached and it is a serious irregularity for further prosecution. Later on, it is also found that the samples were collected on 18.3.1993 and remained in the same condition till it was first tested by the Government analyst after about more than six months i.e. till 11.10.1993 and thereafter by the Central laboratory after another six months. It no doubt diminishes its drug value which is exposed to temperature beyond 25 °C. It has been observed that it ought to have been tested immediately after sending the same but the same was tested on 11.10.1993. During such period, in which condition the drug or samples were kept has not been explained. Regarding complicity of the accused there is no convincing material brought on record and therefore, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order in favour of the accused- respondents. 4. Upon consideration of the entire record and the findings recorded by the trial Court which are duly supported by sound reasons. No perversity is found in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. No interference is, therefore, called for. Leave is refused. 5. The application is rejected. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )