TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the Respondent-Accused Under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the Respondent-Accused. 3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that the Respondent was running a medical shop viz., M/s. Sri Balaji Medicals. On the directions issued by the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Salem Zone, the Drugs Inspectors had inspected the Respondent's medical shop on 17.12.2008. In the course of inspection, it was found that certain drugs were stored without a valid drug licence and the same were seized. A memo dated 22.12.2008 had been issued to the Respondent-Accused alleging contravention of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Respondent had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent was obtained on blank papers in which Exs. P-4, P-7 and P-10 were prepared. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-State has submitted that the High Court has failed to consider that the Respondent without having a valid licence stocked and selling the drugs and that he did not disclose the name of the supplier of the drugs, which is a punishable offence under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It was further submitted that the High Court erred in allowing the revision on the ground that the signature in Exs. P-4, P-7 and P-10 were obtained on blank papers and that the Respondent had failed to prove such fact. It was also submitted that in the light of the admission made by the Respondent in Ex.-P4, non-examination of Kama....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and Cosmetics Act for not furnishing the name of the supplier of the drug which is punishable Under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 9. The High Court has set aside the conviction mainly on the ground of non-examination of one Kamalakannan-the person in whose name the pharmacy licence stood and one Jayanthi in whose name the shop stood. The High Court did not keep in view that under Ex.-P4, the Respondent has admitted that he had purchased the retail shop-M/s. Sri Balaji Medicals from one Jayanthi and that he had shifted the shop from the old place to the current premises No. 191, Main Road, Bargur and selling the drugs. Relevant portion of Ex. P4 reads as under : I have purchased the retail Sri Balaji Medicals two year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act, stocking or storing of drugs for sale cannot be done without a licence. Respondent is charged for having stored drugs for sale without licence. Before a person is convicted Under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act, the prosecution must establish that the drugs are stocked or stored for sale without licence. 12. On the date of inspection i.e. on 17.12.2008, when N. Banumathi, Drugs Inspector (PW-1) inspected the Respondent's shop, he did not have any licence. He only stated that he was not aware that he has to obtain the licence. When the Respondent has stocked the drugs and was selling the same without licence, there was violation of Section 18(c) of the Act which is punishable Under Section 27(b)(ii) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and that admission of such carbon copies raises serious doubt about the prosecution case. As pointed out by the trial court as well as by the first appellate court, Under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, carbon copies can be taken into consideration as primary evidence and we find no infirmity in admitting carbon copies of those documents. 15. Yet another contention advanced by the Respondent is that his signatures were obtained on blank papers and that Exs. P-4, P-7 and P-10 have been made using the signed blank papers. As pointed out by the courts below, if at all the signature of the Respondent in Exs. P-4, P-7 and P-10 were obtained on blank papers, the Respondent could have lodged a police complaint or a complaint before the h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der cannot be sustained. 17. Insofar as the sentence of imprisonment, the offence Under Section 18(c) of the Act punishable Under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act which prescribes minimum sentence of imprisonment for one year and minimum fine of rupees five thousand. As per proviso to Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, court may impose the sentence of imprisonment for a term less than one year and a fine of less than five thousand only. In this case, the offence was committed in the year 2008, about ten years back. The Respondent was not having any prior conviction under the Act. As pointed out earlier, in his statement, Respondent had stated that he was not aware that he has to....