Crl.
Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.
Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:
20. 12.2012.
Dr.
Mehboob .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** SABINA, J.
Petitioner was tried for offence punishable under Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii).section 18(A) punishable under Section 28, 18(a) (I) read with Section 17A Rule 125A and Schedule R-1 punishable under Section 27(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('Act' for short).The Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 18.1.2011/22.1.2011 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) and 28 of the Act.
Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal.
The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.12.2012 acquitted the petitioner qua offence punishable under Section 28 of the Act.
However, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) of the Act was upheld.
Hence, the present petition.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.9.2003, the District Drugs Inspector along with others inspected the shop/clinic of the petitioner.
The petitioner was present in his shop.
Petitioner was found giving medicines to his patients after charging the requisite fee from them.
Petitioner had stocked number of allopathic medicines although he was not having a Crl.
Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) -2- certificate with regard to possession of allopathic medicines not had any licnece to store the said medicines for sale.
The petitioner was found in possession of 17 different allopathic drugs including the disposable syringes, needles and IV set for sale and distribution for the purpose of re-use.
After hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Parjinder Singh as PW-1, Rakesh Dahiya as PW-2 and Dr.
Tirath Raj as PW-3.
The said witnesses duly proved the prosecution case.
The petitioner was, thus, in possession of allopathic drugs although he was not having any requisite certificate or Drugs Licence in this regard.
Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led during trial, have thus rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Courts below.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE December 20, 2012 Gurpreet