IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1861 of 2008 Date of Decision : May 25, 2011. Parveen Kumar ....... Petitioner Versus State through District Drug Inspector ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL. Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dhruv Dayal, DAG Haryana, for respondent. M. JEYAPAUL, J. (ORAL) The revision petitioner faced the trial for offence under Section 27(b)(ii) read with Section 28 of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short 'the Act'). He was convicted thereunder and was sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to undergo further period of simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused/revision petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, Kaithal. The Sessions Court also confirmed the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court. The accused/revision petitioner aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court has preferred the present criminal revision petition. 3. On 26.6.1998, the shop of the accused/revision petitioner was inspected by the District Drug Inspector (PW2) in the presence of Dr. S.S. Dahiya, Medical Officer, PHC, Pundri (PW1). He found 23 varieties of allopathic drugs kept by the accused/revision petitioner for sale without any valid drug license. On the basis of private complaint lodged by PW2, the accused was summoned to face the trial which proceeded as a warrant case. Crl. Revision No. 1861 of 2008 -2- 4. PW2 Satpal Verma, the District Drug Inspector as well as PW1 Dr. S.S. Dahiya, who was present during the course of inspection, have categorically deposed that the accused/revision petitioner was found in possession of 23 kind of allopathic drugs. They have also deposed that the accused/revision petitioner was found selling those drugs to the patients. Based on such reliable evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the accused under the aforesaid provision of law. The appellate Court also having appreciated the evidence on record simply confirmed the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court. 5. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. 6 . Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner also would fairly submit that the revision petitioner does not presently challenge the verdict of conviction. But it is his submission that the revision petitioner who is presently aged 42 years and is blessed with three children has been ailing from various diseases. Referring to the suspension of sentence and order of bail passed by this Court, he would submit that this Court had infact made an observation as regards the ailment of the revision petitioner while granting bail, suspending the sentence. Therefore, it is his submission that some leniency may be shown by this Court in the matter of sentence awarded by the trial Court. 7. Per contra, learned DAG appearing for the State would submit that the minimum sentence of one year has been prescribed in the old provision which was applicable to the present case and therefore, the minimum sentence awarded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court may not be interfered with. Crl. Revision No. 1861 of 2008 -3- 8. The fact remains that the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner was suspended and bail was granted by this Court only on the health ground projected by the revision petitioner. It is found that the revision petitioner has faced the trial of thirteen long years. The revision petitioner, who has infact attained the age of 42 years, has been blessed with three children. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find that some leniency in the matter of sentence is quite warranted. 9. In the old provision under Section 27(b)(ii) of Act, a proviso is also found to the effect that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year and a fine of less than Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore, the mandatory penal provision found under Section 27(b)(ii) will have to be read with the proviso referred to above. For the reasons stated above, I find that the revision petitioner could be awarded with the sentence already undergone. 10. In view of the above, reducing the sentence imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court to a period of sentence already undergone by the revision petitioner, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. As the revision petitioner is on bail, his bail bond shall stand discharged. (M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE May 25, 2011. sjks.