Gurdev Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Karam Chand Puri, J.—Challenge in this revision is to the (i) judgment dated 30.11.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and; (ii) judgment and order dated 4.8.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur whereby petitioner was convicted under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ''the Act'') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment and fine as under:-

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The brief facts of the case are that on 5.7.2005 clinic/premises of the Gurdev Singh petitioner were inspected by Sh. Gurbinder Singh, Drugs Inspector, Ferozepur where accused Gurdev Singh was present as In-charge cum proprietor of the said shop and during inspection, accused was found stocking 16 types of allopathic drugs in his shop for sale and distribution. He was asked to produce valid RMP certificates or valid Drugs Licence as per requirement and disclose the source of acquisition of the drugs stocked by him. The accused failed to produce any licence and bills of the drugs so, complaint u/s 27(b)(II) and 28 of the Act was filed against the accused.

The accused was summoned to face. On appearance of the accused, copy of the complaint and others documents were supplied to the accused free of costs, as envisaged u/s 207 Cr. P.C.

In order to prove his case, the complainant examined PW-1 Kulwinder Singh, Drugs Inspector, PW-2 Gurbinder Singh, Drugs Inspector, PW-3 Kewal Krishan, Dealing Assistant and thereafter closed his evidence.

The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr. P.C., wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he denied and pleaded false implication.

The accused was called upon to lead evidence in defence but he has chosen not to examine to any witness in defence.

Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment and fine as narrated above.

Feeling dis-satisfied with the judgment and order dated 4.8.2011, the accused preferred an appeal. Vide judgment dated 30.11.2013 Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur dismissed the appeal.

Feeling still dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgments, the accused has filed the present revision.

Vide order dated 5.2.2014 notice of motion was issued in respect of quantum of sentence since there was concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below.

Regarding quantum of sentence learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused has been facing trial since 2008 i.e. for the last more than 6 years. He is not a previous convict nor involved in any other case. As per custody certificate, he has already undergone incarceration for a period of 4 months and 2 days and has earned remission of 16 days as on 1.4.2014. So, lenient view be taken regarding quantum of sentence.

As per conviction slip, the petitioner is not a previous convict nor involved in any other case. The drugs were not found to be spurious but the accused was found to be in possession of allopathic drugs without any licence. He has been facing trial for the last more than 6 years. So, considering all the circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner stands affirmed. However, his sentence stands reduced to one year i.e. the minimum prescribed by the Act instead of two and a half years awarded by both the Courts below. So, the sentence stands modified to that extent. However, the sentence of fine stands affirmed.

With the modification in the sentence, the revision stands dismissed.