THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1968 of 2004 JUDGMENT: On the basis of the private complaint filed by the Drug Inspector, Amalapuram, to the effect that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s Sri Lakshmi Medical and General Stores, Vilasa of Ainavilli Mandal, and that, on 16.01.2001, on credible information, he inspected the said shop and found the accused stocking certain drugs labelled as “Physician’s sample, not to be sold” along with other saleable drugs, he seized all those drugs under the cover of panchnama and on the request made by him by a letter also, the accused did not disclose the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the said seized drugs, thus, contravening Section 18(1)(vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 65(18) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 27(d) and 28 of the Act, the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, has numbered it as C.C.No.311 of 2001. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-11 were marked, besides M.O.1. On behalf of the accused, none was examined nor any documents were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, by his judgment, dated 21.02.2003, found the accused guilty of the said offences and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Sections 27(d) of the Act and further, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 28 of the Act. Against the said judgment, the accused filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2003 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Amalapuram, East Godavari District, who by his judgment, dated 23.11.2004, dismissed the appeal, but, however, modified the sentence of imprisonment from one year to two months for the offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Revision Case. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, submitted that the petitioner was in jail for two days and requested this Court to take a lenient view. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 23.11.2004 and immediately, the petitioner was sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. By virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 25.11.2004, he was released from jail. Thus, he suffered imprisonment for two days. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two months imposed on the petitioner-accused by the lower appellate Court by the impugned judgment, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 27th January 2011 DR