Partly allowed

Y.Rama Krishna, Nizamabad Dt., v. State of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Telangana HC11 Dec 2024CRLRC/1094/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against concurrent convictions for stocking and selling veterinary drugs without a valid licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced imprisonment to period already undergone, enhancing fines to Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- for the three offences.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fines enhanced to Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively, depositable within six weeks.

Y.Rama Krishna, Nizamabad Dt., Vs State of Ap… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

NOTE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated. 23.05.2014 in Crl.M P.No.1715 of 2014 in Cd R C No 1094 of 2014.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO IHOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: '1094 OF 2014

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the^judgment dated 14-05-2014 passed in Crl.A.No. 47 of 2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad confirming the^judgment dated 25-03-2013 passed in C.C.No. 619 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Y.Rama Krishna, S/o. Y.Sundaraiah, Aged 28 years, Proprietor of M/s. Shiva Sai Poultry and Veterinary Needs, D.No.4-2-340, Beside Sri Vishnu Bhavan Hotel, Opp Bus Depot, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. (A-1)

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P., rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. E GANESH,

¶16

Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

CE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶19

CRIMINAL REVISION cAsENo.1O94 of2Ol4

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The present criminal revision case is filed under . Sections 397 aod 4O1 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment dated 14.05.2OL4 in Crl.A.No.4T of 2013 passed by rhe learned Sessions Judge at Nizamabad (for short^.appellate Court) conhrming the Judgment dated 2S.Og.2Ol3 in C.C.No.619 of 2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan (for short 'trial Court).

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on 29.O4.2OO5, at 12:3O P.M., the Drug Inspectors of Nizamabad and Kamareddy conducted a joint raid on M/s. Shiva Sai poultry and Veterinary Needs, Door No.4-2-340, Opp. Bus Depot, Bodhan, in the presence of two panch witnesses. The Drug Inspector,of Nizamabad found stocks of veterinaqr drugs for sale in the shop and the petitioner herein was found conducting the business. Upon inquiry, the petitioner stated that he was not holding a valid license for stocking and sale of drugs. The drugs along with 34 purchase invoices, as mentioned in Form No.16, the sale bill book of the firm, and ^?

¶23

¶24

EVV.J CRLRC 1094 2024

¶25

the electricity bill, were seized under the^{cover of a} panchanama. Subsequently, the Sub-Inspector of Police/ G. Sreenivas picked up Enrofloxacin -^{10% (1x4x00) Batch} No.30 PENOI, Mfg. Date Dec.04,^{Exp. Date N/06, Mfg.} License No. 3OIRRlAPl2OOllF/G,^{Manufacturedby M/s} Sri Sai Biovet Formulations^{private limited, Hyderabad,lor} analysis, as per Form^No. 17, dated^{29.O4.2OO5. However,} the report of the analyst has^{not been receivedas on the} date of filing the complaint.

¶26

¶27

During the course of trial,^{on behalf of the} prosecution, PWs.l to 3 were examined^{and got marked} Exs.P. 1 to P.23, besides marking^{Material Objects as MO-1} to MO-2O. In defence, no evidence^{is adducedon behalf of} the petitioner/accused, either^{oral or.documentary.}

¶28

After appreciating the oral and^documentar5r evidence available on^{record uide judgment dated} 25.03.2013 in C.C.No.619 of^{2O05, the trial Court foundthe} petitioner/accused guilty of the offences^{punishable under} Sections 27(al^(111,28 and^{22(31 of the Drugs and Cosmetics} Act, 1940. The accused No.1^{is sentencedto suffer,rigorous}

¶29

EVV,J CRLRC 1094 2024

¶30

imprisonment for a period of one year and he is also directed to pay a line of Rs.5,000/- under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. The accused No. 1 is further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,00O/- for the offence punishable under Section 28 of the Act. The accused No. 1 is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,OO0/- for the offence under Section 22(31 of the Act.

¶31

Aggrievcd by the sarne, the petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2Ol3 on the fite of the learned Sessions .Iudge, Nizamabad, after re-appreciating of evidence and the material available on record, dismissed the appeal vide^judgment dated 14.O5.2O14 in Crl.A.No.4S of 20 13, thereby <:onhrming the^judgment dated 25.03.2013 in C.C.No.619 of 2O05 passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner cont.ended that the Sessions Judge erred in convicting the petitioner under

¶33

¶34

EVV.J cRLIlc 1094²⁰¹⁴

¶35

Sections 22(31,27(al(ii),^{and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics} Act, 194O,^{as the essential elements of the offences were not} proved by cogent^{and convincing evidence' The appellate} Court erred^{in relying on the testimonyof PWs1 to 3' which} was inconsistent^{and biased' The petitionerneither sold nor} possessed the^{drugs, and there was no evidence linking} them to the^{alleged offence' The premisesfrom which the} veterinary drugs^{wereseized belong to PW3' but not the} petitioner. Furthermore,^{there was no evidenceto show that} the petitioner^{was involved inselling drugs from that} location. Even^{assuming the prosecution'scase is true'} mere^{possessionof drugs is not an dffence without there} being any^{proof of sale' No documentaryevidencewas} produced to^{establishthe petitioner'spossessionof the} premises or involvement^{in the alleged offence'}

¶36

On the^{other hand, the learned Assistant Public} Prosecutor^{submitted that the trial Court' after appreciating} the evidence^{on record inproper perspective, rightly} convicted and^{sentenced the petitioner/accused for the} aforesaid offences^{and after re-appreciation of evidence' the}

¶37

)

¶38

EVV,J CRLRC t094 2024

¶39

appellate Court rightly confirmed the conviction and no sentence recorded by the trial Court and hence, interference is called for by this Court.

¶40

Heard Sri D. Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for-the petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and perused the record.

¶41

A perusal of the evidence and the material available on record reveals that there is a concurrent linding of both the Courts below with regard to the sale of drugs by the revision petitioner without holding a va,lid licence. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted as far as convictiorr recorded against the petitioner. However, since the offence took place long back in the year 2005, taking into consideration the mental agony and hardship suffered by the petitioner for all these years and also in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner/accused No.l by both the Courts below to that of the period already

¶42

I I

¶43

¶44

EVV.J CRLRC tO94 ZO24

¶45

(

¶46

undergone by the petitioner/accused No. 1, but by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.5,0O0/- to Rs.25,00O/for the offences under Section 27(bl(11 of the Act; from Rs. 1,00O/- to Rs.25,0OO/-; for the offence under Section²⁸ of the Act from Rs. I,OOO/- to Rs. 1,O0,OOO/-; and also^for the offence under Section 22(31 of the Act and the^{said fine} amounts have to be deposited by the^{petitioner/accused} No. 1 to the credit of C.C.No.619 of 2OO5 on the^{file of} learned Judicia-l Magislrdte of First Class,^{Bodhan, within a} period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

Except the above modification, the^impugned judgment passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court shall remain unaltered.^{Accordingly,the} present Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶48

Pending miscellaneous applications, if^{any, shall} stand closed.

¶49

Sd/. T. KRISHNA^KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

: SECTION OFFICER

1 . The Sessions^{Judge,at Nizamabad.} 2 The Judicial^{Magistrate of First Class,Bodhan} 5. fwo bts to^{the "puUiiCprosecutor, High Court for the Stateof Telanganaat} Hvderabad^(OUT)

¶55

ifi;-CCt" Sni.^{o pununcHANDRAREDDY,Advocate [oPUC]}

¶56

Two CD CoPies

PIVeh

fl,?,

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1111212024

rlr,-.
S'I{
o 2
2 6 JAIJ 202s
c
I

¶64

ORDER

¶65

CRLRC.No.1094 ot 2014

¶66

DISMISSING THE CRL.RC

¶67

Y.Rama Krishna, Nizamabad Dt., v. State of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Rama Krishna, Nizamabad Dt., v. State of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd.

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

Middoddi Raj Kumar , Raj Vs the State of Ap.

Duvvapu Venkatesh , Venkay , Bandodu, Eg.Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Gangaram Seth M.S.Prakash Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Md.Chathabee, Vs Md.Yakub

P.Ananda Rao Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Manne Sangameswar, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.