- (1.) By way of instant Criminal Revision, the applicant has challenged the judgment dated 27.11.1999 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 82/1998, by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate Court"), arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.4.1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 621/1990, by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"). Brief facts leading to the instant case as per the prosecution are that the applicant, who is a resident of village Nariyara under Police Station-Pamgarh in District Bilaspur, was having a shop adjoining his house and from the said shop the applicant was selling medicines and injections. For the selling of these medicines and injections, the applicant did not have any sort of license or an order from the Government nor was the applicant able to show the details in respect of the purchase of these medicines nor was in his possession any receipts in respect of the purchase of these medicines. 1.1. Case of the prosecution is that on 26.8.1988, Satyawan Sao (PW-4) had made a complaint to the Deputy Controller, Food and Drugs Cosmetics, Bhopal, who, in turn, issued an order on 22.10.1988 to M.S. Tomar (PW-1.) and Chief Drug Inspector Premnarayan (PW-5) for necessary verification. M.S. Tomar (PW-1) and Premnarayan (PW-5) went for verification on 28.2.1989 to the applicant's village and since the applicant was not available in the village on the said date, the verification/inspection could not be done. Subsequently, on 18.3.1989, M.S. Tomar (PW-1) and Premnarayan (PW-5) again went to the village of the applicant and, on finding the applicant at the shop after giving necessary introduction, conducted inspection and in the said inspection, 169 medicines and injections of allopathy as well as Ayurvedik, as per Form No. 16, was seized. On seizing these 169 allopathy and Ayurvedik medicines, as per Form No. 16, M.S. Tomar (PW-1) asked for license from the applicant in respect of storing and selling of these medicines, upon which the applicant submitted that he does not have any license. Similarly, the inspection team also sought for the details of the purchase like the agent or the dealer from whom the medicines had been purchased or the receipts in respect of the purchase so made. To this also the applicant could not any give satisfactory explanation and reply. 1.2. Thus, on the report of M.S. Tomar (PW-1), a case was registered against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940 (for short, 'the Act of 1940'). Subsequently, the matter was put to trial in Criminal Case No. 621/1990 before the trial Court. 1.3. The trial Court, after conclusion of the trial, vide its judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.4.1998, found the applicant to be guilty of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Act of 1940 and, after convicting the applicant for the said offences, sentenced him to undergo of R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months for offence under Section 27(b)(ii) and to undergo R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 28 of the Act of 1940, with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. 1.4. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.4.1998 was challenged by the applicant in an appeal, which was registered as Cr. A. No. 82/1998, before the appellate Court. 1.5. The appellate Court also, after considering the submissions and contentions put forth by the applicant and taking into consideration the evidences that have come on record, found the findings arrived at by the Court below to be proper, legal and justified and thereby affirming the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, rejected the appeal preferred by the applicant, vide impugned judgment dated 27.11.1999.
(2.) It is this judgment dated 27.11.1999 passed by the appellate Court, which has been put to challenge by way of instant criminal revision.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits before the Court that the trial Court should have taken into consideration the fact that in the rural back drop of the Indian society in villages and in remote areas, the medicines which are used for the general public for non serious and petty ailments like cough, cold and fever in the villages; there are shopkeepers who sell these medicines and, if not, for these shops, the poor villagers will have to travel quite a far distance for getting these medicines. The second contention put forth by the counsel for the applicant is that the daughter of the present applicant has done a course in pharmacy and has also enrolled herself with the State Pharmacy Council and for which, necessary certificates have been issued by the Pharmacy Council. As such, she is qualified and competent to sell medicines and also knows about the medicines to some extent. Lastly, counsel for the applicant submits that the date of incident (i.e. the date on which the inspection was conducted) was 18.03.1989 and, as such, it is almost 25 years now that the applicant was charged for the offences under the provisions of the Act of 1940 and that at the time of the incident itself, the applicant was around 55 years of age and, after these 25 years of litigation, the applicant has reached around 80 years of age. Therefore, taking a lenient view, the sentence part imposed upon the applicant may be reduced for the period already undergone as the applicant has already been in jail for a period of about 20 days.;