PANKAJ NAQVI, J. - (1.) This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.1.1992 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T. No. 78 of 1991 (State Vs. Prem Pal Varshney) convicting/ sentencing the appellant under Section 275 IPC/Section 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to life with fine of Rs.1 lac and a default sentence of 5 years R.I. (a) PW-1, a Drug Inspector on 12.5.1982 inspected the shop of the appellant, namely M/s National Medical Store, wherein he purchased 5 tables of DEXAMETHASONE (Batch No.38 D/M May 81) vide Cash Memo (Ex.Ka 1), for the purpose of sample/ test survey. PW-1 sent the said sample to Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to C.D.L.), where it was received on 14.05.1982. The C.D.L. submitted the test report dated 04.06.82 (Ex.Ka 4) disclosing the sample as spurious and that it did not contain DEXAMETHASONE. (b) PW-1 on 26.6.1982, again inspected the shop of the appellant and purchased vide a cash memo (Exbt Ka-5) 47 tablets of DEXAMETHASONE (Batch No. 38D/M May 81). Out of 47 tablets, PW-1 prepared 4 samples, i.e, 20+9+9+9 and got them sealed in the presence of appellant, duly signed by both of them, appellant was intimated of the same on Form 17 of the same date. PW-1 sent the sample containing 20 tablets to the C.D.L, vide a memo dated 28.06.82 to obtain a test report, which was received by the laboratory on 20.7.1982. (c) The Government Analyst, C.D.L, Calcutta submitted a report dated 19.8.1982 (Exbt. Ka-10) disclosing that the sample does not contain DEXAMETHASONE and as also the sample is misbranded as per Section 17(f) and adulterated as per Section 17B(eii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act , 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The report dated 19.8.1982 was sent by Registered AD/ Post to the accused / appellant on 28.8.1982 (Ex.Ka-16). The accused / appellant vide his registered / AD Post reply dated 25.9.1982 (Exbt. Ka-18), inter alia controverted the report alleging that the said medicines were purchased from M/s Bharat Pharma and Chemicals, A-5 of Industrial Estate, Hathras under their bill no. 35 dated 22.4.1982. He also requested for a fresh analysis of a sample from a sealed bottle in his possession.
(2.) PW-1 on above allegations filed a statutory complaint under Section 27 (a), 27(6) read with section 18a(i) , 18a(ii) , 18a(iia) and 18a(vi) of the Act, on 21.9.1983 before the Special Court. The trial court taking cognizance of an offence under Section 275 of the IPC read with U.P. Act 47 of 1975, as also under Section 18(a)(i) , (ii), (iii) and 18(c) of the Act proceeded against the appellant as well as the manufacturer. It appears that the manufacturer approached this Court in A-482 no. 10644 of 1991 and obtained an interim order on 11.10.1991, whereby proceedings of the trial court were stayed against him. The trial of the manufacturer stood segregated.
(3.) The prosecution examined PW-1, in order to establish its case. The appellant denied the allegations and contended that the alleged sample was purchased from M/s Bharat Pharma and Chemicals, Hathras, a Licensed firm. He examined himself as DW-1.;