- (1.) The State of Haryana has filed the present appeal on being aggrieved against the acquittal of Respondent Baldev Krishan Chawla and M/s Sirsa Medical Agencies, Flat No. 17, 1st Floor, Janta Bhawan, Sirsa, in a Criminal Complaint under Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') read with Rule 65(17) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''), filed by Virender Kumar Kamboj, the then District Drugs Inspector, Sirsa, dated 29.8.2000. The complainant stated that he was appointed as an Inspector under Section 21 of the Act by the Government of Haryana and was having a jurisdiction for whole of the State of Haryana. Thus, he was competent to launch criminal complaint. Adarsh Goyal was also notified as an Inspector under Section 21 of the Act. Baldev Krishan Chawla and Hari Krishan Chawla were the partners of M/s Sirsa Medical Agencies, Flat No. 17, First Floor, Janta Bhawan, Sirsa. On 6.5.1999, the complainant along with Adarsh Goyal, the then District Drugs Inspector, Sirsa and L.C. Mittal, Senior Drugs Inspector Hisar Zone, Hisar, had searched the business premises of the accused and during search they had detected seven kinds of drugs in the trade stock, which were marked as ''Physician's Samples not to be sold''. The inventory of these seven kinds of drugs was prepared. The same were put in five cardboard boxes. It is stated that by keeping of those drugs, which were marked as ''Physician's Samples not to be sold'', the accused had committed an offence punishable under Sections 27(d) of the Act.
(2.) On 3.5.2001, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, had charged the accused that they had kept in their possession seven brands of drugs, which were marked as ''Physician's Samples not to be sold'' for public sale and thereby they had contravened the provisions of Section 18(a)(vi) of the Act read with Rule 65(17) of the Rules, and hence the same are punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act.
(3.) It is not disputed that these drugs were found from the business premises of the accused and to this effect, P.W. 1 Adarsh Goyal, Inspector, Fatehabad, has so deposed and to the similar effect is the testimony of P.W. 2 L.C. Mittal, Senior Drugs Inspector, Hisar. The accused, in defence, have examined Ravi Kohli as D.W. 1, D.K. Sharma as D.W. 2 and Naresh Kumar as D.W. 3. The defence witnesses were the Medical Representatives of the Drug Companies to whom the said drugs belonged. The gist of defence evidence has been given in para No. 8 of the impugned judgment dated 15.1.2002, passed by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa and the same reads as under: 8. On the other hand, Ravi Kohli (D.W. 1) testified that he is a Medical Representative of Johnson and Johnson company for the last 12 years. He is acquainted with the accused. He had sent some medicines to the accused by transport. The G.R. Regarding the same is Ex.PC and his letter is Ex. DD. He had sent the medicines on 29.4.1999. These are the same drugs which were seized by the DDI. These drugs were ''Physician's sample and were not for sale. After the seizure by the DDI, he had written the letter to his company that the drugs had been seized. To the same effect is the testimony of D.K. Sharma (D.W. 2) who has deposed that he is working as Medical Representative of Park Davis Company. He had sent some medicines to the accused through transport. The G.R. of the same is Ex.DB and his letter is Ex.DA. These are the same drugs which were seized by the DDI. Similarly, Naresh Kumar (D.W. 3) has deposed that he is a Representative of B.E. Limited. He had kept some medicines at the shop of the accused. He used to take those medicines and distributed them to the Doctors as they were Physician's samples. Accused had no concern with the same and had only permitted him to keep the samples at his shop. This is the whole of the evidence led by the parties...;