In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradestr

petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be plgased to grant special leave to present an appeal against the order of.acquittal C.C.No.56712015 on the file of ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Magistrate, Malkajgiri. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M.VIVEKANANDA REDDY, ASSISTANT PUBLTC PROSECUTOR (TG) counsel for the Respondents: sRl NARSING RAO MORAPARAJU The Court made the following: ORDER : l i !I I IIoN'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENMS RAO JUDGMEIIT: This criminar appeal has been f-rred by the State aggrievecl b.y the judgment dated 24.OT .2O lT passed by the learned II Additionar Junior civil Judge-cum-XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Markajgiri in c.c. No.567 of 2oL5, where,nder respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are acc,sed Nos- 1 and 2, were acquitted for the offences under Se:ctions 18(a)(i), tZ(bl, t7(cl, 2T(d), t8A, 22(L)(cca), 27(bl(i1), 27(c), 2T(d), 22(S) and 2A of the Drugs and cosrnetic:s Act, L94o (hereinafter referred to as .the Act,).

2. Heard Sri M-Vivekananda Reddy, rearned Assistant Public Prosec,tor appearing on behalf of the appellant- State.

3. No representation on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2- Hence, this co,rt is not having any option except to proceed .vith the matter on rnerits.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred r-o as they were arrayed before the court below. \tl \ \ \. 2

5. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that accused No.1 is the rnanufacturing company i.e. Magven Pharrna and accused No.2 is the proprietor of the said Company and the cornplainant is th.e Drr.g Inspector, who launched the prosecu.tion. The cornplainant had filed the complaint against accused Nos.l and 2, whohave manufactured Bethamechol Chloride 25 mg without license, rnanufactured the spurious Bethanechol drr. g and misbranded Bethanechol Chloride tablets, thereby they have contravened the provisions of the Act. The complainant had also conducted panchanarna in the presence ot two panctras LWs.3 &,4, collected. the sarnples and sent for amalysis by giving the samples to the accused under proper acknowledgement and following due procedure under the Act. LW- 1 also collected the reports and filed cornplaint for the aforesaid offences before the Court below and the sarne was took cognizance and nurmbered as C.C.No.567 of 2OL5.

6. On behalf of prosecution, before the Court below, PWs. 1 to 4 were exarnined and Ex.P1 to P23 and M.O.1 was marked. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were examined and no documents were rnarked. The trial Court / 3 after taking into consideration the oral and d.ocumentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties, acquitted acctrsed Nos. 1 and 2 for the aforesa-id offences.

7. Aggrieved by the above said judgment, the state has filed the present Appeal. B. Learned Assistant public prosecutor subrnitted that the lear.ed Magistrate without properly considering the oral anc. documentary evidence on record erroneously acquittecl accused Nos. L and, 2, though ttre prosecution discLrarg:d their initial burd.en of proving the offences. In the abseece of any contra evidence, the learned Magistrate disbelieved the version of the proseclrtion only on the ground that the proseclrtion has not filed the original docurnerrts, though the prosecution frled Exs.pl to '23. He further surbmitted that the prosecution also examined PWs.3 and 4, however, the rearrred Magistrate did not consider their evidence. Learned Magistrate ought to have considered the documents, which are prod.uced by the prosecution, under sections 63 and 66 of the Indian Evidence: Act- Merery on the ground of non-filing the original rlocurnents, the Co,rt below disbelieved the same \ \ t I I I I I ! I \ \ 4 which is not permissible under law. Hence, prays to set aside the judgrnent passed by the Court below and convict accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences with whrich they were charged

9. Having considered the rival subrnissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that on O2.O9.2OO2, PW.1, who is the cornplainant, along with LW.2 accompanied by two panch witnesses, inspected the Company of accused No.2 and found that accr-rsed Nos.1 and 2 were rnanufactr:.ring the Drugs in their Cornpany, without ' kraving any valid license. He tkr, arl conducted. panchanama, seized the property and sent the sarne for analysis. After collecting the reports, PW.l filed the complaint before the Court below. Basing upon the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance.

10. The record further reveals that on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.Pl to P23 were rnarked.. Out of the sarne, P.14, Pl6, P18, P2O and P23 are Xerox copies. PW.1 is the complainant, PW.2 is the Investigation Officer and PWs.3 and 4 are panch 5 witnesses. The prosecution has not prod",ced any other witness '-n s,pport of their case. The learned Magistrate after corLsidering the evidence on record rightly come to concl,si<ln that pws.l and 2 are the Investigation officers and PWs .3 and 4 are the rivar company proprietors and even they do not know whether accused No.l company still rnarLufacturing the D^rgs or not. pws.3 and 4 in their evi<lence specifically admitted that panchanama was conducte d after seiz,re was made. As per the procedure, the concrirfled authorities ought to have first cond.ucted. a panchanama and then seized the material. whereas, in the case on hand, the panchanarna was conducted after the seizu.re- violation of procedure ,nder the Drugs Act for' sarnprling would draw adverse inference against the case of the prosecution. Learned Magistrate has rightry come to conclusion that the prosec,tion has rniserably failed to crove the g,ilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond al1 reasonable doubts and rightry acquitted. accused. Nos.l and 2. 1 1' In c:ases of acquittar, the Hon'role supreme court in Ravi Sh:rrrna v. state (Governrnent of NCT of Derhi| \ \ \ \ i! i; i! it'li i. !i :l i 5 o' and anotherl, held that wtrile dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evid.ence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal. L2. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradestr2, the Hon'lole Suprerne Court after referring several Judgrnents regard.ing the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acqr' ittal, held at para 70, as follows: "7O. In the tight of ttrc aboue, tlrc High Court and other appeltate Courts sttould follow the utetl-settled principles crystalli-zed bA nurnber of Judgrnents if it is going to ouerntle or othentise disturb the trial cottrt's aquittal:

1. The appellate court maA onlg ouerntle or othenttise disturb t?rc trial cottrt's acquittal if it has "uerg substantial and cornpelling reasons' for doing so- A nurnber of instances arise in which the appellate court usould hq"ue ouery substantial and compelling reasorls' to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and cornpelling reasons' exist tuhen: facts is palpablA wrong: I The trial court's cortclttsion with rega-rd to the ii) The tial court's decision u)as based orl arl | (202218 Supreme Court Cases 536 2 (2008) 10 SCC 45O , ,/ I \ 7 er"roneous uieu.t of law; iii) The trta"l court's jud.gmenf is likelg to result in iv) The entire approach of the trial court in d.ealing v) The trio.l cou,rt's judgment was manifestlg ogr e.ue miscarriag e of justice " ; utilh the euidence taas patentlg iilegal; ury'u st ctrtd urvea_sonable ; vi) The trial court has ignored. the euid.ence or misread. the materiq.l euidence or has ignored. material d.ocuments like dying declarations/report ojtne ballistic expert, etc.

3. "oun. vii) This list is intended. to be ilrustratiue, not exLtaustiue. . _2. The appellate court must alwags giue protrter wetght and consideration to the findings ofihe lAot If two reasonable uieuts can be reached oru<z that leads to acquttta| the other to conuiction the Higth Courts/ appellq.te courts musf ntle in fauour ii;; ac<:used." 13. It is already stated slrpra that the Drug Inspector has no.: followed the procedlrre while cond.ucting panchanama and seizure and. the prosec,tion Lras only relied r-rJ)on Exs.pl to P-23, out of the sarne, Exs.pl to P.I4, P.[6, p18, p2O and F23 are Xerox copies of documerrts and the prosec,tion has not produ.ced the original docurnents. pws.3 and 4 are rivar company Proprietc,rs. L4. In 'riew of severar discrepancies and. the principles laid dow, by the Honbre Supreme court sttpra., this court is of ttLe considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against accused. Nos.1 and 2. I{ence, this court is not inclined to interfere with \ I I 8 tLre well-reasoned jud.gment passed by ttre learned Magistrate acquitting accused Nos' L and 2'

15. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed' Pending rniscellaneous applications' if aBY' shall stand closed. SD/.T.VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY //TRUE N OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Magistrate, Malkajgiri.(with records, if any)

2. The Station House Officer, Drug lnspector of Police Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4.' One CC to Sri Narsing Rao Moraparaju, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies NVB/psl I I i: i i i i 1 I I I HIGH COTURT DATED:09/1 412025 I ORDER CRLA.No.1537 of 2017 . 'Jt{ 3 2l Jril 202$ t * I ISMISSiING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL \,\at' b