IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1461 OF 2009 Between: The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND Smt. Alapati Vijayalakshmi & 5 others ..... Respondents/Accused The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, under Sections 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed by the State against the judgment, dated 23.09.2008, in C.C.No.1208 of 2000, on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein were discharged for the offence punishable under Sections 18 (a) (i) read with 17 (B) (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, "the Act") punishable under Sections 18B read with Schedule 21 of the Act. 2. The case against Respondent Nos.3 and 4 was abated and the case against Respondent Nos.5 and 6 was quashed by this Court. 3. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: Accused No.2 was the firm which was represented by Accused No.1 who was the Proprietrix on Loan Licence manufactured for sale of M.Os.1 and 2-spurious drugs in the licensed premises of Accused No.4 firm of which Accused No.3 was the Proprietor. It is further alleged that Accused No.6 firm represented by Accused No.5 as its Managing Partner by exhibiting or offering for sale and selling of M.Os.1 and 2 drugs which were declared not of standard quality/spurious drugs. Further, Accused No.2 firm represented by Accused No.1 along with Accused No.4 firm represented by Accused No.3 have failed to furnish the records of manufacture and sale of M.Os.1 and 2-drugs required to be maintained as per Schedule U of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (for short, “the Rules”) when notice was sent under Section 18 (B) of the Act. Thus, Accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed an offence under Section 18 (B) of the Act punishable under Section 28A of the Act and Rules made thereunder. The Accused No.4 firm represented by Accused No.3 have manufactured M.Os.1 and 2-drugs without the active directions and personal supervision of competent Technical Staff and thus, Accused Nos.3 and 4 have violated Section 18 (a) (vi) read with Rule 78 (b) & 76 (1) punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Act and Rules made thereunder. 4. To substantiate its case, the complainant examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, discharged the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 18 (a) (i) read with 17 (B) (d) of the Act punishable under Sections 18B read with Schedule 21 of the Act, violated Section 18 (a) (vi) read with Rule 78 (b) & 76 (1) punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Act and Rules made thereunder. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the complainant proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 18 (a) (i) read with 17 (B) (d) of the Act punishable under Sections 18B read with Schedule 21 of the Act, violated Section 18 (a) (vi) read with Rule 78 (b) & 76 (1) punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Act and Rules made thereunder and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 7. Heard the counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. The evidence on record would go to show that P.W.1 worked as a Chemist of Accused No.2 firm, represented by Accused No.1 who was the Proprietor for some period and resigned from the firm with effect from 06.03.2003. Ex.P1 is the letter, dated 06.10.1998, addressed by him informing his service particulars and Ex.P2 is the attested copy of the service certificate issued by the Accused No.1 firm. P.W.2 is another Chemist worked in the Accused No.4 firm. He also resigned from Accused No.4 firm on 05.06.1983. Ex.P3 is the letter, dated 09.10.1998, addressed by him informing his service particulars and Ex.P4 is the attested copy of the service certificate issued by the Accused No.4 firm. So, both P.Ws.1 and 2 have resigned from Accused Nos.2 & 4 firms on 06.03.2003 and 05.06.1993 respectively. The alleged offence occurred on 28.05.1997. The complainant was said to have picked up the samples of drugs from Accused No.2 firm and sent the same to the Analyst and obtained report. The Analyst opined that the samples of drugs were not of standard quality. The Drug Inspector, who inspected Accused No.2 firm and lifted the samples of drugs and conducted other proceedings, was not examined by the complainant inspite of giving several opportunities. 9. Basing on the material available on record, the trial Court found that there is no material to frame charges against the respondents herein. Accordingly they were discharged in view of the fact that the report of the Drug Analyst was not marked. The Drug Inspector has not been examined to show that the samples of drugs in question have been lifted and sent to the Public Analyst. Therefore, there is no material to show that the respondents herein have committed the offences punishable under Sections 18 (a) (i) read with 17 (B) (d) of the Act punishable under Sections 18B read with Schedule 21 of the Act, violated Section 18 (a) (vi) read with Rule 78 (b) & 76 (1) punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Act and Rules made thereunder. The said order of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 23.09.2008, in C.C.No.1208 of 2000, on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 6th November, 2009 KL