IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRL.A.NO.265 OF 2010. Date:11.02.2010 Between:- The State of A.P., rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..Appellant/Petitioner And K.Rama Rao and others (Present case tried against A1, A3 and A4 only. Case against A2 abated) .. Respondents/Accused JUDGMENT:- This Criminal Appeal, under Sections 378(4),(5)&(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) is filed by the State against the judgment, dated 21.10.2008, made in C.C.No.623 of 1999 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the respondents/accused were found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (‘the Act’, for brevity) and accordingly, acquitted them. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: On 22.10.1996, P.W.1 lifted the samples of drug i.e., Ibuprofen tablets manufactured by the accused firm from the store of Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Sangareddy, Medak District for analysis. When the lifted samples were sent for analysis to Government analyst, Hyderabad, under Form No.18, the same were analysed by the analyst and the analyst opined that the said drug is ‘Not of Standard Quality’. After following the procedure, the complaint is filed against the accused as they violated the provisions of section 18(a)(i) of the Act. 3. When the accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act, they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-34, besides case property M.O.1. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that Sections 20 and 21 have not been followed by the Drug Inspector, that he is not having any authority to inspect the premises in question, as no gazette notification has been filed and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present Criminal appeal is filed by the State. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper?” 7. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that he lifted the drugs in question manufactured by A-1 firm from the store of Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Sangareddy, Medak District, that one sample was sent to the analyst who after analysis found that it was ‘Not of standard quality’ and therefore, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 8. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons viz., the findings are perverse, or contrary to law, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the order of the acquittal. 9. P.W.1 lifted the sample of Ibuprofen tablets from the Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Sangareddy on 22.10.1996. The analyst, after analysis, gave Ex.P-6 report stating that the sample analysed by him was not of standard quality. After obtaining the source of supply of the drug in question, P.W.1 filed the complaint. The only ground on which the accused was acquitted was that the prosecution failed to file gazette notification as required under the Act, for appointment of analyst specifying the local area wherein he can operate. 10. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision of this Court in M/S.GABA PHARMACEUTICALS, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF A.P.[1] wherein it is held that: “the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act are mandatory and it should be followed by the complainant whereunder and whereby, the appointment of analyst specifying the local area wherein the analyst can operate should be notified”. Admittedly, such notification has not been filed in this case and further, the Drug Inspector has not followed certain procedure as contemplated under the Act. There is no proof of lifting sample and the receipt issued for lifting the sample, which are mandatory under Section 23(1) of the Act, and the same were not produced. There is no gazette notification appointing P.W.1 as a drug inspector in the local area of Medak or Sangareddy. Further, P.W.1 did not lift the sample along with the memorandum of specific signature. Therefore, Rule 57 of the Act has been violated. Similarly, the complainant has not produced any material to show that one part of the sample has been sent to the Government analyst. Similarly, the Drug Inspector appears to have made delay in issuing a notice under Sections 18(a) and 18(b) of the Act. For all the reasons, the trial Court acquitted the accused and the said order of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Therefore, appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 21.10.2008, made in C.C.No.623 of 1999 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. _​_______________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th February, 2010 AMD [1] 2007 Drug Cases (DC) 3