Dismissed

The State of a.P.Rep by Pp v. Sadola Santhosh Reddy

Telangana HC22 Feb 2012CRLA/573/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed against acquittal in a case involving offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the accused possessed the drugs for sale or distribution as no evidence showed he controlled the premises or sold medicines.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the respondent confirmed.

The State of a.P.Rep by Pp Vs Sadola Santhosh Reddy — Telangana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.573 of 2004

¶6

Between:

¶7

The Drugs Inspector, Adilabad, Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.Hyderabad

¶8

..... APPELLANT

¶9

And Sadola Santhosh Reddy

¶10

.....RESPONDENT

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶13

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.573 of 2004

¶14

JUDGMENT:

¶15

The Appeal is filed against the acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.157/2002 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nirmal, dated 18.11.2002.

¶16

The accused was prosecuted for the offences under Secs.18(c) and 18-A r/w. Secs.27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmotics Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that on 18.03.2000 at 12.45 p.m. the Drug Inspector-PW 1 surprised the premises bearing Door No.1144, Khanapur Nursing Home in the presence of the mediators-PWs 2 and 3 and the accused was present in the premises and found conducting the business. Thereafter, the Drug Inspector-PW 1 has seized some stocks and the accused has failed to produce the licence for doing the business and consequently, after following necessary procedure, he has been prosecuted.

¶18

The accused pleaded not guilty. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution case was not established and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed.

¶19

The point for consideration is whether the acquittal of the accused is just and reasonable.

¶20

Point:

¶21

In order to sustain the conviction for the offence under Sec.18(c) of the Act, it has to be proved that the accused has got possession and possession of the drugs shall be for sale and stored the same for distribution. Evidently, the premises is said to be a Nursing Home belongs to Dr.V.Vaman Rao, and the accused is said to be present and doing the business, but no bill books were seized and no person to whom the accused sold the medicines was examined. In fact the statement of Dr.V.Vaman Rao was also not recorded to show that the premises was let out to the accused for doing the business. There is also no evidence to show that the accused was permitted to do any

¶22

business on behalf of Dr.V.Vaman Rao. Therefore, there is no proof of nexus between the accused and the said premises. In the absence of any such material, mere presence of the accused at the shop in the Clinic of the Doctor cannot be taken as a case of his conscious possession or ownership of the property. It can be a case where the Doctor himself might be doing the business without any licence. But, for that purpose, the accused cannot be said to be the person having possession or control over the premises, which evidently does not belong to him. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the essential requirement of Sec.18(c) of the Act was not established. The acquittal of the accused recorded by the Court below does not call for any interference.

¶23

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶24

____________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J

¶25

Dated: 22.02.2012 Dsr

The State of a.P.Rep by Pp v. Sadola Santhosh Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of a.P.Rep by Pp v. Sadola Santhosh Reddy

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

Shaik Moulali, Vs Siripurapu Veerbhadra Rao

The Agricultural Market Committee Vs M/s.Raja Rice Traders,rep. by its Managing Partner

The Public Prosecutor, Vs Mohd.Salim Khan

The Public Prosecutor, Vs Gubbala Narendrakumar

M/s Apple Credit Corporation Ltd.,(a Company incorporated Vs M/s Zental Drugs Ltd.,Rep.J.Sanjeeva Rao

M/s.Sudarsan Chemical Industries Limited,Guntur. Vs B.Srinivasa Rao,Proprietor of Srinivasa Traders