IN RE: PANDIAN AND ANR. Vs. STATE
LAWS(MAD)-1970-2-32
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on February 20,1970

In Re: Pandian And Anr. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.N.MUDALIYAR, J. - (1.) THE two appellants appeal against their conviction for offences under Section 10 (a) read with Rule 7 (d) of G.O.Ms. No. 3031, Home, dated 1st November, 1958, framed under Section 16 (1) of the Madras Prohibition Act, for alleged possession, without requisite medical prescription, of 1150 bottles of some Ayurvedic preparations containing an admixture of chloral hydrate, an intoxicating drug. Accused 1 is owner of the shop. Accused 2 is his servant.
(2.) THE shop of Accused 1, situated at No. 26, Mambalam High Road in T. Nagar, was searched between 7 : 30 p.m. and 8 p.m., on 10th February, 1968 in the presence of P. W. 2 and one Veerappan (not examined). Both Accused 1 and 2 were present. In the course of such search, P.W. 1 found 950 bottles (M.O. 1 series), each bearing a label marked " Usrabala Kashayam - -Product of Jothi Pharmacy, H. O. Five Falls Road, Courtallam." Besides M.O. 1 series, there were also 200 bottles (M.O. 2 series), each bearing a label marked " Amirthathi Kashayam, Jothi Pharmacy, Five Falls Road, Courtallam." The Company seals on all the bottles in M.Os. 1 and 2 series were found to be intact P.W. 1's suspicion about the intoxicating nature of the coloured contents of M.Os. 1 and 2 series, was roused. He seized all the bottles under a search -list (Exhibit P -1) attested by P.W. 2. Five bottles from M.O. 1 series and another five bottles from M.O. 2 series, were picked out at random by P.W. 1. They were sealed in the presence of witnesses and the accused, for being sent to the Chemical Examiner, Madras for purposes of chemical analysis. A copy of Exhibit P -1 was duly served on Accused 1 who refused to affix his signature in token of service. Both the accused were arrested and taken to the police station. Exhibit P -2 is the first information report in Crime No. 436 of 1968. The ten sample bottles were sent on 13th February, 1968 to the Chemical Examiner, Madras with a covering letter Exhibit P -3 for purposes of analysis. The report of the Chemical Examiner, Exhibit P -4, which was received on 14th June, 1968, disclosed that the five bottles labelled "Amirthathi Kashayam" (M.O. 2 series) contained self generated alcohol, glycerine, sugar, aromatic substance and chloral hydrate. The contents of the bottles were certified to be ayurvedic preparations containing an admixture of chloral hydrate, the percentage of this ingredient being 0. 7 and 0. 8. The five bottles in M.O. 1 series labelled" Usarabala Kashayam " were found on analysis, to contain chloral hydrate (1.0 per cent. and 1.25 per cent.) and traces of aromatic substance. The contents were found to be free from alcohol. On the basis of the findings contained in Exhibit P -4, the charge was laid against both the accused under Section 10 (a) read with Rule 7 (d) of G.O.Ms. 3031 (Home) dated 1st November, 1958, as the possession of M.O. 1 and M.O. 2 series was not ?covered by any permit or medical prescription. At this stage, I am bound state that Exhibit P -4 was tendered in evidence by P.W. 1.
(3.) THE recovery of M.O. 1 and M.O. 2 series from the shop of Accused 1 has not been controverted. Accused 1 examined himself as D.W. 1. He speaks of the fact that M.O. 1 and M.O. 2 series had been received by him from the Jothi Pharmacy in Courtallam, who were the manufacturers of the medicines. The cash bill dated 25th January, 1968, marked as Exhibit D -1 as well as the transport permit marked as Exhibit D -2 relating to the goods covered by Exhibit D -1, have also been produced. According to accused I, he did not know that M.O. I and M.O. 2 series contained chloral hydrate or any other intoxicating drug. Accused 2 has not adduced any evidence in defence.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.