Ramesh Chander vs State of Punjab

B.S. Yadav, J.

The present petitioner Ramesh Chander and Raj Kumar were prosecuted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, for having committed offence under section 27(a)(i) (on two counts) of the Drugs (and Cosmetics) Act, 1940. Both were convicted on both the counts and each was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ under each count by the learned trial Court. It was also ordered that in default of payment of fine the defaulter would undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under each count.

Ramesh Chander and Raj Kumar filed separate appeals which were disposed of by one judgment by learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar. He did not find any merit in the appeals and dismissed the same but reduced the sentence of each one of the convicted persons under each count to one year on the ground that the offence was committed in 1976. Feeling aggrieved Ramesh Chander has come to this Court in revision.

It may be mentioned here that Raj Kumar had also filed Criminal Revision No. 1008 of 1981 but the same was dismissed in limine on 23rd September, 1981.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 4th August, 1976 PW 1 Harbhajan Singh, Drugs Inspector, accompanied by PW 8. Salwan inspected the premises of Ramesh Medical Store situated at Amritsar. Ramesh Chander petitioner was at the shop. Two samples of medicines, one of Chloramphenicol and the other of Tetracycline capsules were seized according to the rules. The relevant memos prepared by the said Drugs Inspector were attested by A.R. Salwan and signed by Ramesh Chander petitioner. The seized samples were sent to the Public Analyst who vide reports Exhibit PH and PJ found the same to be adulterated and of substandard quality because in chloramphenicol capsules there was no drug of that name thought it was claimed that each capsule contained 250 mg. of it Similarly in tetracycline capsules no Tetracycline was found though it was claimed that each capsule contained 250 mg of Tetracycline Hcl. After reports of the Public analyst, the Durgs Inspector filed complainant against Ramesh Chander and Raj Kumar. As already noticed earlier they have been convicted under section 27(a)(i), on two counts, of the Drugs (and Cosmetics) Act, 1940.

The only argument advanced was that Ramesh Chander had nothing to do with the shop in question. This argument has no force. The prosecution has led sufficient evidence on the record to show that both Raj Kumar and Ramesh Chander were partners of M/s. Ramesh Medical Store. That evidence has been discussed in detail by both the learned Courts below and it has been held that both Ramesh Chander and Raj Kumar were running the shop under the name of M/s Ramesh Medical Store and both were its partners. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any infirmity in the judgments of the learned Courts below.

Otherwise also evidence cannot be appreciated afresh at this stage. In this respect reference can be made to State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu and others, A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 663. In the judgment their Lordships clearly defined the powers of Revisional Court. It was remarked :

"So far as the first point is concerned, it is to be emphasised that although the revisional power of the High Court under section 439 read with section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is as wide as the power of Court of Appeal under Section 423 of the Code, it is now well settled that normally the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 439 is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions of this Court in Amar Chand Agarwalla v. Shanti Bose, 1973(4) SCC 10 : (AIR 1973 SC 799) and Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram (1973) 2 SCC 583 : (AIR 1973 SC 2145). In the latter case viz. Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram (Supra) this Court following its earlier decision in Amar Chand Agarwalla v. Shanti Bose (supra) held that in spite of the wide language of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which empowered it to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order recorded or passed by any inferior court situate within the limits of its jurisdiction and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court and in spite of the fact that under Section 439 of the Code it can exercise inter alia the power conferred on a court to appeal under Section 423 of the Code the High Court is not expected to act under Section 435 or Section 439 as if it is hearing an appeal."

For the foregoing reasons I do not find any force in the present petition and dismiss the same.