State Of H.P vs Dinesh Kumar

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The present revision is directed against the order dated 16.4.2025, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the learned Trial Court declined to frame a charge under Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (Drugs Act). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the Drugs Inspector filed a complaint against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 18A and 18B, 18(a)(vi) and Section 22(3) of the Drugs Act. It was asserted that the complainant inspected the premises of the accused on 21.3.2017. The accused was present in the shop and was selling the drugs belonging to the modern system of medicines. The accused produced he license on demand. The Drugs Inspector found seve al habit-forming and other scheduled drugs in the premises. He asked the accused to disclose the name f the person from whom he had acquired those drugs; however, the accused failed to submit any record. No purc ase and sale record was maintained by the accused. The complainant seized the drugs in the presence of witnesses. He drew the samples and sent them to the Government Analyst. As per the report, the drugs were found to be of standard quality. The report of analysis was served upon the accused. The accused failed to respond to the letters written by the complainant. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who committed it to the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, HP, for trial.

Learned Trial Court held that the medicines were sent for chemical analysis and were found to be of standard quality. Therefore, the provisions of Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs Act were not violated. The charges were framed for the commission of offences punishable under Section 18A and 18B of the Drugs Act, to which the accused pleaded guilty. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused.

Being aggrieved by he non-framing of the charges, the State has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in h lding that no case under Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs Act was made out. The Court has to see a prima facie case while framing the charge. The material on record clearly proved a violation of Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs Act. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in not framing the charge. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully

Section 18(a)(vi) reads that from such date as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the official gazette in this behalf, no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacture for sale or distribution, sell, stock, exhibit or offer for sale, or distribute any drug or cosmetic in contravention of any of the p ovision of this chapter or any rule made thereunder.

Theref re, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had possessed the drugs in violation of the provisions of the chapter of the Drugs Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The complaint is silent regarding the violation of any Rule. It was specifically asserted that the accused produced the retail drug licence on Form-20 and Form-21, valid up to 19.8.2019. Therefore, the accused was having a valid licence to sell the drugs.

It was also stated in para. 8 of the complaint that the samples were sent to a Government analyst and they were declared to be of standard quality. Therefore, the drugs did not violate the standards of quality. No other violation was asserted. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was justified in holding that no case for the violation of Section 18(a)(vi) was made out.

It was submitted that the accused failed to disclose the name of the person from whom he had acquired the drugs, and he had also failed to maintain the record. The accused was charged with violation of Sections 18A and 18B of the Drugs Act for failure to disclose the name of the manufacturer and maintain the record. Th s, the learned Trial Court had dealt with the accused as per the pr visions of the Act.

Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court; hence, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.

A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the learned Courts below, be sent back forthwith.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.