Criminal Revision No. 2079 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2079 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.8.2009 Shri Vijender Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner has approached this Court against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby conviction of the petitioner under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, `the Act') was upheld. However, the sentence awarded to him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act was reduced from 1-1/2 years to one year, upholding the other sentences. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in the present case was not the owner of the hospital, as admittedly the same was owned by Dr. Rajinder Dhanodia. Once that is so, mere presence of the petitioner as an attendant in the hospital does not mean that the petitioner was in conscious possession of allopathic medicines or he was selling or dispensing the same to any patient. Considering these facts, no offence under the Act was made out against the petitioner and accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned courts below convicting the petitioner to undergo sentence were totally beyond the evidence on record. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It is an admitted case that the petitioner was present at the hospital and certain allopathic medicines were recovered from there at the time of raid. The petitioner cannot be absolved of his liability, considering the fact that the hospital at the time of raid was open and the doctor, who claimed that he is the owner thereof, was not present. It has come in evidence that he used Criminal Revision No. 2079 of 2009 [2] to visit the place only 2-3 times in a week. In case the doctor, who owned the hospital , used to come there only for 2-3 days in a week, there was no reason for the petitioner to have opened the same and being in possession of allopathic medicines, as it cannot be disputed that he was not authorised either to stock or dispense allopathic medicines. The hospital could be opened only by the doctor, who claimed himself to be the owner thereof. Considering the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned courts below convicting the petitioner for the offence committed. Menace of quacks, who have opened hospitals in the villages, needs to be checked sternly. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.8.2009 mk