Drugs Inspector vs Dande Thirumala Rao And 4 Others

Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents 1 to 5/Accused Nos.1 to 5 recorded vide judgment dated 12.06.2019 in C.C.No.410 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, the present appeal is filed.

The 1st respondent/Accused No.1 was charged for the offences punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’) and respondents 2 to 5/Accused Nos.2 to 5 were charged for the offences punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act.

The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1-B.Lakshmi Narayana assisted by P.Ws.2 and 3 inspected the premises of the 1st respodndent/A1 and found 32 varieties of drugs. The 1st respondent/A1 failed to produce any drug licence for stocking the said 32 varieties of drugs and no purchase bills or any record was found regarding the drugs found. In the said circumstances, P.W.1 seized the said drugs in the presence of panch witnesses. The said samples of drugs were sent to the Government Analyst, Drug Control Lab, Hyderabad. However, it was found that the drugs were of standard quality. P.W.1 also searched the premises of respondents 2 to 5/Accused Nos.2 to 5 and after 1st respondent/A1 informed P.W.1 that the drugs found were purchased from Accused Nos.2 to 5. However, no bills were produced regarding the seized drugs by A1 or A2 to A5. For the said reason, a private complaint was filed by P.W.1 alleging offences under Section 18(c) of the Act and Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. Further, A1 has violated Rule 65(4) and 65(9)(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act.

The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2, Inspectors, P.W.3 panch for seizure of the drugs from the premises of A1. During the course of trial, Exs.P1 to P24 were marked and also seized drugs as MOs 1 to 23.

The trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the details of the seized drugs were not mentioned in the panchanama Ex.P4 and further does not specify whether the drugs were found in the premises belonging to the 1st respondent/A1. Further, the drugs were also found to be of the standard quality.

The learned Magistrate also found that P.W.3, who is the mediator in whose presence drugs were allegedly seized stated that he does not know the details of the medicines mentioned in Form-16 and he does not know about the drugs being seized from the 1st respondent/A1, for which reason, the learned Magistrate found that the execution of Ex. P4, panchanama and Exs.P3, 5 and 6 being Forms 16, 17-A and 17 are doubtful.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that since drugs were found in possession of the respondent No.1/A1, it is for the A1to discharge his burden to disprove the case of the prosecution and further when A1 informed that the drugs were purchased from A2 to A5, their involvement also is apparent and they are liable to be convicted for the charges leveled against them.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 and also in the case of Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 116 held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.

In Guru Dutt Pathak’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“15. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC  (Cri) 325] , this Court reiterated the legal position as under  : (SCC p. 432, para 42)

‘42. … (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.’”

It is for the prosecution to explain as to why the details of the medicines are not mentioned in the panchanama Ex.P4 and P.W.3, an independent witness has pleaded ignorance of the details of the drugs mentioned under Ex.P3. Further, the prosecution has not filed any document to prove that the premises from which the alleged drugs were seized belongs to the 1st respondent/A1. A1, during the course of trial, has specifically denied about his reply Ex.P14, wherein A1 allegedly mentioned that the drugs found in his possession were purchased from A2 to A4. In the said circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Unless the prosecution discharges its burden of proving the criminal case beyond reasonable doubt, the trial Courts have no other option, but to record an order of acquittal. The reasoning given by the learned Magistrate while acquitting the respondents 1 to 5 are cogent and only because a different view is possible, the Courts while adjudicating upon the appeal against acquittal cannot accept such view when the view taken by the trial court is plausible and proper.

For the said reasons, the prosecution/State has not made out a case to reverse the order of acquittal.

In the result, the appeal filed by the State fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.