THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.122 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal, under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {Cr.P.C.}, by the State, is directed against the judgment dated 04.12.2008 in C.C.No.191 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise Offences, Nalgonda, whereunder and whereby the respondents/A1 and A2 were found not guilty of the offences under Sections 27 (d) (II), 27 (d) and 22 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 {“the Act” for brevity}. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 21.12.2000, P.W.1, during routine verification of main medical stores, Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Nalgonda, found rolled bandages of sizes 10 cms x 4 mts and 7.5 cms x 4 mts manufactured by A1 and A2 is the proprietor of A1. One portion of the seized sample was sent to the Government Analyst. The Government Analyst opined that the sample is not of a standard quality. Thereafter, the Drug Inspector seized the bandages under panchanama and lodged the complaint. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 27 (d) (II), 27 (d) and 22 (3) of the Act, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P36 besides case properties MOs.1 to 4. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to follow the mandatory provisions under Section 20 and 21 of the Act for the offences punishable under Sections 27 (d) (II), 27 (d) and 22 (3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused for the offences under Sections 27 (d) (II), 27 (d) and 22 (3) of the Act beyond all reasonable doubt? 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is very clear that the bandages in question were manufactured by the accused and the report of the Public Analyst-Ex.P20 would clearly go to show that the bandages are not of standard quality. Hence, she prays to set aside the judgment of the Court below. 8. This Court in a decision reported in M/s. Gaba Pharmaceuticals, Hyderabad and another v. State of A.P.[1], held that the provisions of Section 20 and 21 of the Act, which are mandatory, should be followed by the complainant; the appointment of the analyst specifying the local area wherein the analyst can operate should be published and prosecution has to produce such gazette notification specifying the area. When the complainant failed to produce such evidence, there is inherent defect in the complainant’s case. Similarly, under section 21 of the Act, it must be shown that the Public Analyst was appointed for a particular local area to exercise his jurisdiction under gazette notification. Ex.P1 is the said Gazette Notification. Ex.P1 was filed but it is only initial appointment of P.W.1 as the Drug Inspector in the entire State but the Government has to issue a notification duly notifying an order under which the Inspector can inspect no such Gazette Notification for Nalgonda area. Absolutely there is no evidence produced to show that P.W.1 has got power to inspect the premises in question by virtue of any notification. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Court below. 9. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment dated 04.12.2008 in C.C.No.191 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise Offences, Nalgonda. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 28th January 2010 RRB [1] 2007 Dug Cases (DC) 3