Criminal Revision Case No. 1895 of 2003 · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
This revision is directed against the judgment in C.C.No.964 of 2000 dated 24.09.2003 on file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate,
Secunderabad as confirmed in Crl.A.No.383 of 2003 dated 13.11.2003 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad whereby the petitioner-A2 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short “the Act”) for contravention of Section 18(c) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The Drug Inspector, Hyderabad filed a complaint against the petitioner-A2 and two others alleging that they are running a medical shop under the name and style of M/s. Sai Ranjani Medical and General Stores at Lalapet without having any valid licence.
On information, he went there on 02.06.2000 in the evening and inspected the shop. On questioning A1 to A3 could not produce the valid licence. Hence, he filed a complaint. On filing the complaint, learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad taken the case on file against A1 to A3 for commission of offence punishable under Section 27(b) (ii) of the Act for contravention of Section 18(c) of the Act. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P27. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. Having analyzed the evidence adduced, the trial Court found accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act, convicted for the said offence and sentenced the petitioner-A2 to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner- A2 and another filed Crl.A.No.383 of 2003 on the file of t he Special Judge for trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. The learned Sessions Judge, after reassessing the entire evidence, confirmed the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this revision. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that though this is not a fit case to acquit the petitioner, a lenient view may be taken in his case. From the record, it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for one day. In those circumstances, though this Court takes a lenient view and reduce the sentence to the period that has already undergone, however enhance the fine from the said amount of Rs.2000/- to Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand only) as provided for under Section 28 of the amended Act which has come into force with effect from 10.08.2009.
Enhanced fine amount of Rs.18,000/- shall be paid in the trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If for any reason, the said fine amount is not paid, the sentence imposed by the Courts below shall automatically comes into operation. Except the said modification, in all other aspects, the criminal revision case is dismissed. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Date.07.12.2010. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1895 of 2003 Date.07.12.2010
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.