1 S.B. Cr. Leave to Appeal No.39/2009 State of Rajasthan vs Radha Kishan & Ors. Date of order : 31.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. OP Singaniya, Public Prosecutor. <><><> Heard learned Public Prosecutor on petition for leave to appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 6.9.2008 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Balotra by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Cr. Case No.179/1993 dated 11.7.2006. In the trial court a criminal complaint was submitted under Sections 27(b), 27(c), 27(d), 28(a) and 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Commodities Act, 1940 with the averments that sample was taken from the firm M/s. Arun Drugs Store, Barmer on 5th July, 1989 and it was sent to Central Laboratory, Gaziyabad from where report was received on 15th June, 1990 holding the sample commodity of sub-standard. The copy of the said report was sent to 2 the firm M/s. Arun Drugs Store and the accused Rada Kishan informed that the said drug was purchased from M/s. Bhanwar Lal Bhimraj Gandhi of Jodhpur by bill no.2598 dated 22.6.1998 then copy of the said analysis report was sent to the firm M/s. Bhanwar Lal Bhimraj Gandhi, Jodhpur. Then said firm informed that the drug was purchased from M/s. Babbar Sons, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur vide bill no.3797 dated 31.3.1990. Then copy of the said report was sent to M/s. Babbar Sons, Adarash Nagar, Jaipur, who in turn informed that drugs was purchased from M/s. Raborts pharmaceuticals, Adarash Nagar, Jaipur. The said firm accepted that drugs was manufactured by them. After evidence, the trial court vide judgment dated 11th July, 2006 acquitted all the accused with very many reasons and one of the reason was that the sample report was provided to the accused after expiry of period of commodity and therefore, the accused was deprived of obtaining the second report for the same commodity, which has resulted into deprivation of their valuable right of obtaining analysis report afresh. After going through the reasons given by the trial court, which have been considered by the appellate court 3 and in view of the concurrent finding of fact, I do not find any reason to grant leave to appeal. Hence, the leave to appeal is dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-