HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 103 of 2006 O R D E R: The petitioners are A1 and A2. They were convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 27(D) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (‘the Act’ for short) for the violation of the provisions of Sec.65(18) r/w.Sec.18(1)(a)(vi) and Sec.18(A) of the Act and were sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1000/- each with default sentence. The petitioners failed in the appeal as the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. Hence this petition. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused was found selling physician samples in his stores and that he thus committed an offence punishable u/Sec.27(D) of the Act. The prosecution examined two witnesses. PW-1 was the Drug Inspector at Nizamabad at the relevant point of time. P.W.2 was a mediator for the seizure of the stock. PW-2 did not support the prosecution story. He was considered to be hostile. The learned Senior Assistant Public prosecutor was permitted to put leading questions to PW-2. Be that as it may, the fact is that PW-2 did not support the prosecution story. 3. The only evidence available on record is the evidence of PW-1. Sri A.Sanjeeva Reddy, learned counsel for the accused contended that since PW1 was demanding illegal gratification from the accused and that as the accused did not conceed to his demands, this false case was foisted against the accused by PW-1. It may be noticed that PW-1 is the only witness examined by the prosecution. Since the only other witness examined by the prosecution and as the PW.2 did not support the prosecution story. Consequently, the basic question is whether it should be considered that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 4. The accused were examined by the trial court u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. When the imputation of the prosecution was put to them, the accused admitted being in possession of the contraband. They stated that the drugs were to be returned to the concerned from whom they were received. Thus, apart from the evidence of PW-1, at the time of the of the examination of the accused u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. the accused admitted that they were indeed in possession of the drugs. The drugs in dispute are physician samples, which were not meant for sale. Admittedly, the same were in display along with other drugs which were meant for sale. The accused claimed that they intend to return the drugs to the person from whom they were taken. If the intention of the accused was not to sell the seized drugs, there was no possibility of displaying the same along with other drugs. I therefore, wholly agree with the findings of the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court that the very admission by the accused through their response u/s.251 Cr.P.C. coupled with the corroboration from the evidence of P.W.1 establishes the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.27(D) of the Act beyond reasonable doubt. 5. The trial court considered it appropriate to sentence each of the accused to one year simple imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.500/-. The minimum sentence provided u/Sec.27(D) of the Act is one year. I see no extenuating circumstances to reduce the imprisonment as recorded by the trial court. So far as the fine is concerned, I deem it appropriate to reduce the fine amount of Rs.1000/- each to that of Rs.100/- each in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one week each. 6. Accordingly, this revision primarily is dismissed confirming the conviction recorded by the trial court and the appellate court. So far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, the same as recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is maintained. The fine of Rs.1000/- each as imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is reduced to a fine of Rs.100/- each in default of payment of which to undergo S.I. for one week each. 7. With the above observations, the criminal revision case is dismissed, accordingly. _____________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR DT. 25-3-2011 Mjl/