Criminal Revision No. 571 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 571 of 2009 Date of decision : October 07, 2009 Devinderpal Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 49972 of 2009 The application is allowed and Annexures P/2 to P/7 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Criminal Revisiosn No. 571 of 2009 Devinder Pal Singh has filed this revision petition against order dated 25.2.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, thereby allowing prosecution application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C. ). According to the prosecution version, M/s Davindra Medical Agency, Patiala was raided by Drug Inspector and some drugs were seized Criminal Revision No. 571 of 2009 -2- from the shop. The said drugs were found to be spurious, misbranded and substandard. The petitioner was said to be proprietor of the said shop. Consequently, complaint was instituted against the petitioner under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The petitioner took stand in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had no concern with the business of the aforesaid shop and he had gone there as customer to purchase medicine and Pala Ram owner of the shop was not present and while the petitioner was waiting for him, officials of police and health department entered the shop and took him to Police Station where he was made to sign various papers. The petitioner led evidence in support of his plea that he has no concern with the aforesaid shop. Thereafter, the prosecution moved application under section 311 Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner had obtained licences from the Licencing Authority, Punjab, Chandigarh for carrying on business as proprietor of Davindra Medical Agency and the said licences were issued on 18.10.1995 and were renewed from time to time and last renewal was done on 8.1.2009 for the period from 1.1.2008 till 31.12.2012. The prosecution accordingly wanted to examine the dealing Assistant of the office of Civil Surgeon, Patiala as witness with relevant record to prove that the petitioner as proprietor of M/s Davindra Medical Agency had obtained the aforesaid drug licences. The said application has been allowed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by way of impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Criminal Revision No. 571 of 2009 -3- even during cross-examination of Sanjiv Kumar, Drug Inspector CW1, the petitioner had made suggestion that the petitioner is not proprietor of M/s Davindra Medical Agency as revealed by statement Annexure P/2. Similar suggestion was also given to other witnesses. It is accordingly contended that the prosecution at belated stage cannot be permitted to fill in lacunae in its case. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that the petitioner was admittedly present at the shop at the time of raid. The petitioner also signed all documents prepared on the spot including seizure memo. The petitioner also gave bills of purchase of medicines. Even in the complaint, drug licences of the petitioner were mentioned. It was also contended that the drug licences now sought to be produced are from official records and cannot be said to be fabricated or forged. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Spurious, substandard and misbranded drugs were seized from the shop. The petitioner was admittedly present at the shop at the time of seizure. Various documents including seizure memo admittedly bear signatures of the petitioner, although according to learned counsel for the petitioner, his signatures were obtained on blank papers. Bills of purchase of medicines were also seized on the spot. Moreover, the drug licences now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence were initially issued in the year 1995 and were renewed from time to time and therefore, the same cannot be said to be forged or fabricated. Section 311 Cr.P.C. consists of two parts. The first part vests discretion in the court to allow the additional evidence whereas the second part mandates the court to allow the additional evidence if the evidence Criminal Revision No. 571 of 2009 -4- appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. In the instant case, the proposed documentary evidence sought to be led by the prosecution is very much essential to the just decision of the case. The same cannot be shut out merely on the ground of delay. In this context it is to be noticed that spurious and substandard drugs pose danger to the health and lives of the public at large. This menace has to be curbed to protect the society. A person accused of possessing spurious and substandard drugs for sale should not be allowed to escape scot free merely on the basis of hypertechnicalities. Procedural law is meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart the same. If proposed additional evidence is not allowed, it would result in grave miscarriage of justice. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order of learned trial Magistrate permitting the prosecution to lead proposed additional evidence cannot be said to be illegal or perverse so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The trial Magistrate has exercised his discretion in permitting the prosecution to produce the proposed additional evidence. The Magistrate had the jurisdiction and the power to pass the impugned order and no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 07, 2009 Judge 'dalbir' Criminal Revision No. 571 of 2009 -5-