Revisional interference and statutory minimum sentence relief: conviction restored for unlicensed drug sale, with custodial term reduced

Stocking and selling drugs without a valid licence, together with failure to disclose the supplier's name, sustained conviction where the respondent's own admissions showed purchase and continued operation of the medical shop without licence. The High Court should not have disturbed concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction absent perversity or ignored material evidence, and the objection to carbon copies did not defeat the prosecution case. The conviction was restored under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. On sentence, the statutory minimum was reduced because adequate and special reasons existed, including the age of the incident, no prior conviction, and the respondent's claimed lack of awareness of the licensing requirement; imprisonment was reduced to three months while the fine was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction for stocking and selling drugs without a valid licence and for failure to furnish the supplier's name; (ii) whether the sentence of imprisonment required interference.

Issue (i): whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction for stocking and selling drugs without a valid licence and for failure to furnish the supplier's name.

Analysis: The Respondent's own statements admitted purchase of the medical shop, continued sale of drugs, and absence of any valid licence for the inspected premises. The prosecution evidence established storage and sale of drugs without licence, attracting contravention of the licensing requirement and the offence relating to non-disclosure of the supplier. The non-examination of the earlier licence holder and shop owner was not fatal in view of these admissions. The High Court also ought not to have interfered with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction. The objection to carbon copies was rejected as they were treated as admissible primary evidence on the record.

Conclusion: The conviction was rightly restored, and the Respondent was held guilty under the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Issue (ii): whether the sentence of imprisonment required interference.

Analysis: The offence carried a statutory minimum sentence, but the Court found adequate and special reasons to invoke the proviso to the sentencing provision, considering the age of the incident, absence of prior conviction, and the Respondent's stated lack of awareness regarding the licence requirement.

Conclusion: The sentence of imprisonment was reduced from one year to three months while the fine was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part by restoring the conviction and modifying only the custodial sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction should not disturb concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on ignored material evidence, and a sentencing proviso may be invoked for adequate and special reasons to reduce the statutory minimum term.

---