THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.165 of 2010 DATE: 02ND FEBRURAY 2010 Between: The State of A.P. rep by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. And another. …Appellant / Petitioner AND K.Rama Rao And others …Respondent / Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.165 of 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (4) (5) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) is filed by the State against the judgment, dated 21.10.2008, made in C.C.No.459 of 2000 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the respondent/accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 27(d) and 28(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (‘the Act’, for brevity) and accordingly acquitted. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows. On 16.10.1997, the Drug Inspector inspected and lifted the samples of Vitamin B-Complex tablets bearing batch No.112197 from Primary Health Centre, Porumamilla, in the presence of Medical Officer. The lifted samples were sent for analysis to Government Analyst, Hyderabad, under Form No.18. The Government Analyst opined that the said drug is ‘Not of Standard Quality’. On receipt of the analytical report, the Drug Inspector issued notice along with copy of the test report to the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Porumamilla to disclose the source of supply of the drug. Thereafter, the Drug Inspector addressed a letter to the District Medical and Health Officer, Cuddapah, to disclose the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom they acquired the drug. The Drug Inspector received reply from the District Medical and Health Officer, Cuddapah, stating that they purchased the drug from M/s.Venkateswara Pharmaceuticals. Thereafter, the Drug Inspector called for certain information from the accused asking for manufacturing and analytical record of the drug in question. Thereafter, after obtaining written consent from the Inspector General of Drugs and Copy Rights, Hyderabad, permitting the Drug Inspector to launch prosecution against the accused for manufacturing drug that of not standard quality and for violating Section 18(a)(i) of the Act, the Drug Inspector launched prosecution against the accused. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 27(d) and 28(A) of the Act, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.28, besides case property M.O.1. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, found the accused not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 27(d) and 28(A) of the Act and accordingly acquitted him. Challenging the same, the present Criminal appeal is preferred by the State. 7. 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(d) and 28(A) of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the Government Analyst, after testing the drug in question, found the said drug as ‘Not of standard Quality’ and accordingly, the Drug Inspector, after obtaining permission from the authorities, launched prosecution against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 27(d) and 28(A) of the Act and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in dealing with the Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal, though the Appellate Court has got full power to re-appreciate the evidence available on record, but it will be slow in interfering with the findings in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons viz., the findings are perverse, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons while interfering with the order of acquittal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that Section 20 and 21 of the Act is mandatory provision to be followed by the Government in appointing Drug Inspector to a local area, wherein he can operate. The prosecution should also file the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh specifying the area and jurisdiction of Drug Inspector for inspection of the premises where drugs were stored. Ex.P.1 is the general notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh appointing P.W.1 as Drug Inspector. That notification does not indicate the authorization given to him by the Government to inspect the disputed premises. Following the decision of this Court reported in Gaba Pharmaceuticals Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. There are no substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming judgment, dated 21.10.2008, made in C.C.No.459 of 2000 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU February 02, 2010 Bvv [1] 2007 Drug Cases (DC) 3