Dismissed

The Drugs Inspector, v. Kadaverugu Sudhakar

Telangana HC5 Aug 2021CRLA/863/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal filed by the State challenging an acquittal, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The trial court acquitted the accused for failing to stock drugs for sale under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the accused was stocking drugs for sale.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 19.10.2016.

The Drugs Inspector, Vs Kadaverugu Sudhakar — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD^..

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶4

RIMINAL APPEAL N F

¶5

Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (4) (5) & (1)Crl.P.C against the Judgment dated 19/10/20'16 in CC No.341/2012 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.

¶6

Between:

¶7

The Drugs lnspector, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶8

...APPELLANT (ACCUSED)

AND

Kadaverugu Sudhakar,

...RESPONDENT

For the Appellant : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

For the Respondent : SRI A,M.RAO, Advocate

¶14

The Courl delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶15

THE IIONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶16

¶17

(TFTIMINAL APPEAL No.863 of 2Ol7

¶18

JUDGMENT:

¶19

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (41 (5) &⁽¹⁾ of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.) by the State, challenging the^judgment dated 19.10.2O16 passed in C.C.No.34 I of 2012, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet, wherein the accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections r8(c), 18(A), 22(1)(cca) and 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

¶20

For the serke ol convenience, the parties i,'",ill hereinafter be re lerrecl t() as arl.ryecl in CC.No.34 I of 2012.

¶21

Thc cast- r>f prosecution in brief is that, on 20.09.2O 10, on rcceipt ol credrble information that the accused ht:rein has stockcd rlil'lere nt dn-rgs irt D:No. l1-3-146 (micldle shutter), Bharathnagar, Siddipet, irithout possessing any licence, the Drugs Inspector along with mediators, rushed to the said premises and found that the accused has stocked '27' different varieties of drugs in huge quantities in the said premises. On enquiry, he failed to produce purchase bills or drug licence of the said drugs. Then the Drug Inspector seized the above drugs under cover of panchanama and deposited the same into Court. On 12. 10.2010 a notice U/ s. 1B-A and 22(l)(cca) was issued to the accused requesting to disclose the details ol'the purchase of the seized drugs along with self attested copies ol invoiccs and names and addresses of firms/persons from r.vhom tlre accused obtainecl the said drugs. But, the accused did

¶22

¶23

¶24

not give any reply even after receipt of.reminder to the said notice . Hence, the accused has contravened Sections l8(c), 1g(A) and 22(ll(cc:al of Drugs and cosmetics Act, i940 by stocking the above said '27'different varieties of Drugs without any permission, rvhich amounts to an offencc punishable uncler Section 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. After completion of investigation, the Drugs Inspector has filed charge sheet and entered appearance of the accused before the Court conccrned and explair_red the contents of accusation to him, for which the accusecl denied the same and claimed to be tried.

¶25

The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined pWs. 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.pl to pg. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.p.C. explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused has denied the same and reported that there is no defence evidence on his behalf.

¶26

After analvzing the evidence available on record the trial Court has acquitted the accused. Challengrng the samc, the prescnt appeal is filed b1,.the State.

¶27

Heard learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for t.he appellant-State, Sri K.Narsimha Reddy, learned counscl representing on behalf of Sri A.M.Rao, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

¶28

Learned Assistant Public prosecutor appearing for the appeliant-State contended that the judgment of the trial Court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and .D.a, ?.-

¶29

contenclcd that the trial^{Courtfailedto appreciate the evidence in} proper perspL'ctive and the^{reasons assigned in acquitting the} accused are unsustainable.

¶30

Learneci Counsel appearing for the^{respondent/accused} would submit that the prosecution miserably failed^{to establish the} guilt of the accused that he has stocked '27' varieties of drugs without any valid licence or purchase bill and therefore, the accused r.vas rightly acquitted by the trial Court.

¶31

l) The point that arises Jor consideration in this appeal is uthethe,r the judgment of dcquittal recorded bg the trial Court is sustainable in lau.t?

¶32

PW1 is rhe Drug lnspector who seized the drugs under cover of panchanama from the possession of the accused. PWs 2 & 3 are the panch witnesses and PW4 is another Drug Inspector, who filed charge sheet^jn the instant case.

¶33

1 1. PW 1 , tl're Drug Inspector, deposed in his evidence that he seized '27' varieties of drugs under cover of panchanama from the possession of accused as listed in Form No. 16. But during his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that the accused is the orx,ner of the said middle shlltter and that there is no name board to the middle shutter. I-le also admitted that he has not examined anv person to shou. that tht,accused is selling the alleged seized <1rugs; that hc did not llnd zrr-rv sale bill books; that he did not isstie an.1'noticc to the accusecl ancl has not mentioned the details of the seized clrugs.

PWs 2 & 3 who are the panch witnesses, deposed that they do not know anything about the case and that PW1 did not conduct any panchanama in their presence and obtained their signatures on blank papers.

¶39

PW4 is another Drug Inspector who fired charge sheet in this case and who admitted in his cross-examination that he has not conducted any investigation and has not filecl an.y document to shou, that the dr.ugs u,hich were stockcd in thc above mcntior_rccl premises, belongs to the accused and hc l,tas not issued anr. notir:r: to lhe accused.

¶40

On a fair reading of the evidence of pW 1 , it is crystal clear that PW1 himself admitted during his cross-examination that he did not file any documentary evidence to show that the accused is the owner of the said middle shutter; that he has not examined any pe rson to show that accused was selling the drugs which were seized and that he did not find any sale bill books to that effect. Moreover PW4, who is another Drug Inspector, admitted in his evidence that he has not conducted any fresh investigation into the matter after taking charge from pW1 ancl that he has issued chzrrge shect basing on tl-re available record which was har-rdcd over to him by PW1.

¶41

The learned trial Court has clearly explair-re d the usagc oi comma in the words uscd in Section 27, viz., uMantLfacture for sale, sells" have a comma after each clause, but there is no comma aller the clause "stocks or exhibits for sale.,' Thus, the absence of comma after the word .ttfcks, which clearly indicates that the clause 'stocks or exhibits for sale' is one indivisible whole and it

¶42

¶43

contemplates^{not merely stocking the drugs'but stocking themfor} the purpose^{of sale and unlessall the ingredientsare satisfied'} Section 27^{of t:ne Act would not be attractedand therefore'the} prosecution^{failed to provethe guilt of the accused'}

¶44

T6.Incaseofappealagainstacquittal'thescopeofappealis circumscribed^{by limitation Unlessthe approach of lower Court to} the consideration^{of evidenceis vitiated by manifest illegality or the} concltrsiot't alrived at^{by the lower Court isperverse' no} interference^{u'ith the order of acquittal is permissible'}

¶45

ln vieu, o[ the^{foregoing discussion, I find that the learned} trial Cor,rrt has rightly^{passedthe Judgmentacquitting the} accused, which cannot^{be stated to be perverseand contrary to} law. The appeal is devoid of^{merits and is liable to be dismissed.}

¶46

Hence, the Criminal Appeai is dismissed confirming^the Judgment dated 19.10.2016 passed in C.C.No.341 of 2012, on the fi1e of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.

¶47

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

¶48

dismi ssed.

¶49

Sd/.CH.VENKATESWARLU DEPIjTY REGIST R ,TRUE COPY'

¶50

¶51

SECTION OFFICER

¶52

To The Additional Judicial lvlagistrate of First Class,^{Siddipet,IMedakDistrict. (with} records)

¶53

2 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court^{for the State of Telangana,} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶54

3 One CC to Sri A.l\4.Rao, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶55

4 Two CD Copies

¶56

5 One Spare Copy K

¶57

HIGH COURT

¶58

DA,TED:05/08/2021

¶59

'a- 1$g S14T6 or
o' '+'
a
0 4 sEP2t21
ltJ .+
<o,
'-."o,.r ,. -'//
-.ri.-j

¶60

JUDGMENT

¶61

CRLA.No.863 ol 20'17

¶62

DISMISSING THE CRt...I.

The Drugs Inspector, v. Kadaverugu Sudhakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Drugs Inspector, v. Kadaverugu Sudhakar

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

Sri Pappula Srinivas, Vs The State of Telangana

Palvai Kotaiah and 7 Others Vs Palvai Geetha and Another

Achana Srinivas Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

The State of Telangana Rep by Pp., Vs Mohammed Imran, Hyd and 5 Otrs.

Dhadhi Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Bachu Radha Krishna Vs The Senior Intelligence officer