Partly allowed

Payare Lal v. State of Hry.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2015CRR/607/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the imprisonment sentence to the period already undergone by the respondent. The court accepted the petitioner's age and lack of prior conviction as relevant factors. Relief granted accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940; sentence reduced to period already undergone.

Payare Lal Vs State of Hry. — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

KAPIL 2015.11.26 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

[1]

CRR-607-2007

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶6

CRR-607-2007 Date of Decision:18.11.2015

Payare Lal

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶13

Present: Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.

¶15

¶16

SABINA, J.

¶17

Petitioner had faced trial in a complaint under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 08.11.2004/09.11.2004 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Act. Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of his conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 19.03.2007. Hence, the present petition.

¶18

Prosecution story, in brief, is that some allopathic medicines were recovered from the shop of the petitioner,

¶19

KAPIL 2015.11.26 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [2]

¶20

CRR-607-2007

¶21

¶22

although, he had no licence to sell the same. Petitioner was an Ayurvedic Practitioner.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the medicines in question had been brought by the son of the petitioner who was working as a Pharmacist with M/S New Arora Medical Hall. In this regard, petitioner had examined his son Subhash in his defence evidence. Son of the petitioner had produced on record the bills with regard to the purchase of the medicines in question i.e. Exhibit D-2 and Exhibit D-3 dated 16.08.1997. Son of the petitioner had left the bag containing the medicines in the shop of the petitioner and the same were, in fact to be handed over to M/S New Arora Medical Hall. As per 'Mark A', petitioner Subhash son of the petitioner was the competent person of M/S New Arora Medical Hall. Be that as it may, learned counsel has submitted that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner under Section 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Act but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was now aged about 70 years and was facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1997. Petitioner was not a previous convict.

¶24

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned

¶25

CRR-607-2007 [3]

¶26

KAPIL

¶27

2015.11.26 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

¶29

counsel for the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner to the period already undergone by him.

¶30

Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Act is maintained. However, sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶31

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶33

November 18, 2015 kapil

Payare Lal v. State of Hry.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Payare Lal v. State of Hry.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramneek Kaur Vs Simarjit Kaur

Narendermal Bafna Vs M/S Upper India Steel Mfg. and Engg. Co. Ltd.

M.B. Associates and Others Vs M/S Stellar Farms Pvt. Ltd.

Joginder Singh Vs Akam Singh etc.

Arjun Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Surjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab