mm THE HIGH counw OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
HATED THIS THE 11TH DAY my MARCH Zfififl
BEFDRE
THE HUN'EhE MR.JU8TICE R,B}»uE:xi
l.Hf$.Pharma Centre,
Nm.B3f1A, 5"'Crass, ;
Rajenwranagar,VMy3ure}m'_"
2.Raja3hakhar, 54 yéarfigi
flEm=Malla:adhya{",_'.'. , *. *;
Rfat Arakara, KhdihalliVEast;*y'
Kanakagar%}Tg,.3a§g%l¢:e_313$:
$.fihé;%;f:_:anfiaf$fifi?a; 1
3 ya, N, EJa,H§qarajaradhya
Cfa.U;T;3aaa§p3,rfihammanur
Eavamagerwffiwfit;,Dnvanagera--4.... PITITIOIIIB
" _flfiy Sfit}G§é:fi$ nev:.n.p., Aflv)
4ififiD '
Tfié Etatfi at harnataka
Rfififi. By DEHQ Inspectnr,
fiysn:g+&?m 304. m aseeeausaw
Thia Crl.H.F. is filed under Section 39? and
'jécl flr¢F.C. to aet aside the judgment dated
31.1.139
T in c.c.mo.8fi5f96 on tha file of the III
PߢLEg!J# and C,J.M., Mysure, affirmed by the I
Afldl,E.J., Mysore, in crl.A.No.1?f97 dated
E?.1G.EQD4 and set aside tha flanfnnrn and
—~–.- -u-o-1-…
fiQm4uLu_
cmnviatiaratn passed against the patitionar in
€.fi.Nm.afl5f8fi on the .file 6f’ the III .afid1.C.J.
and C.J.M., Mysara and crl.A.Nc.1?f9? an the file
(‘if than I Addl.a3.J.. l~’1’5-‘mare.
This patiticzn -xmminrg an fax’-. . ‘haa.j§’iiigT». ” th’i__
ti-E33′, _1′:.h=xa t;’:=:tLJ:.’+; paaseri the i’f?l1.¢Z’J”‘iiii*’§.«:._-f~..
mditi.ana.1 i?i’r1:i. I’a’.1′: A
‘I’he§r ha???’ beefed’ an order ciateti
puniehabla under
~ with Section 27(6):
section 29: and section 18!!
r-mad Drugs and Cusmetics Act. and
fchsay 4.éemAA’:%Ent.£enu:~ad to undergo 5.1. for Ia-ne year
{‘;E£:1’:: the afféfjfia uru::le.r- Saszticm 27[<:l) af the Drugs
2:"-?m:r:i§;1:ic:a= Ac_: and ta gay fine af ns.5oo/-
VM the offuanca under sactirm 23. Further,
"':.'.Vh%3-' are santsancerzi ta gray fina __£ EIa,5|:_lD./'- each
"~.i'-sir 'uzlhe '*-fifence under Sac*.:.'€.-.:an.23.l-. $2.' …1:ur,!a and
C-*$.1E.%!Il'E'§'.$Ii -ca .-'mt. Ir: fiefault sf ;_.'s'*3-'1-3:31: 9:.' fine,
amusmi N535 . 2 tan 5- are ciireczted iio uranérqa
imprimnmant for 3 further period of three
(1 IN, , \
7v.}LVA/LC,L,LV—–
mcsntlw. Thxa maid order caf ccmvictian and
sentence is confirmtcl by an <:rVc;é_|::Vfl_ dated
ET.1D»EOU4 gaased by the 1 Audit1gna;;tSé§sions
Mvgtgg in Eriminal hypeal_H§}1?f§?;_
2. The brief f-aCtE3;”:.a£fi! wfi;S izncitjtz-‘5
3-. Ezntiiraté t$t:> V.€a’}g’istéra&
against tht E=Vt'”tj,tiot:2e’rtt_:’:hVé’:_g:i.néttaméwtthrte other
a~:’.’=-:::.as~v.a-.r.i g:».az’sc.1I:zzu=:’= tfj,?” Ltnape-star, Myaore
Iziistri-:1_:. . The laarnad
ttat there is a
pz;,*.:i.ttmva«f¥;;x§’._a’;’;*::}:.:’t.;;1;g;.a*.»$jé caf the caffaancas
élV1.:§5l*’.%.*;;*.~’1!’é3vV §..I;§=.{i:t.h.fi”~b_’¢t7mQl’5int and directed issue of
prtItet:a».V the further case of the
‘§L’tsecVwAtist§fi” that A-1 is a. partnership firm and
M»:_rs!fif_’ ta 5 are its partners and accused
” :’1..fa;:._.’.-.a .r:-‘.=,-t;’=.i.1. dealt: a:i_aa._l_ing in drugs under
‘I}t;I__e%d,_ Ihiymnre. It ifi mitt ifi vfiistuta that the
“”A.’f:i.:::3’t =a»:tu;–ae::Id–partnershi5: firm is a ‘linen.-;set:i
w1iu¢::.’Las.aal:a dealer in drugs: and cosmetics and the
a«;:n:1ui.ttaci aacuaad. No.6 is alga a licansad ratail
/al20»z,\.ce,s’z U~–
Accuaad Nm.6 an 7.5.1935 and during thg e§u;sa of
N.F., Brtch Hc.22, alleged n3 have ween
mF”uffiffiuf%fi “y H#E.U11fiulaiE} Ltfi., Efififififit wha
stackafi anfi axhihitad_for73éia. Ha éfiliaéféu
. fin.
N
1&9 tablats 5% sam@i§’ far tfié3fF Qfiéifais Vfinfi
fmrwarfiafi a ,§agtighm”*@f’ <;ha t sampia t9 the
Gavarnment Anaijntf fifiug% ?§s§ing Laboratory,
Eangalm;a;;fThfli¥émfiifi@fl§ §fiafi%:faund in the ahop
ax A¢mfi$g$ ¢g§;é ,§a§* Sé;ze&W and panchanama was
dgamwpT r~I;¢hg. :fi§i£fi$gM} was reported tn the
jfiriadfifi£i@fi§L C§Qrt.: Notice under section 18A
and'1$fi_wE:é iséfied tn accused No.6 an 8.5.1985,
:g;:.»;ier..:3. on 1'I_…!'.-..1.._9fl5. on a.a.19a5_.
A1'? '
!"..r
'z tha'§§ug flifi nut want the stanfiarfi quali
th% Qrug Insgectcr received test Eegurvs frem thfi
'"fl%£fiE}flfi Analyfit, wherein it ""a cfirtifiad that
&afi'a apuriaus drug. The copy of the report waa
j?farwarded tn the aequitted Accuaed Nu.G. on
3.6.1%B5, the cumglainant alang with the Drug
Inspactar Sri.H.s.shyamamahan and witnesses
aaarchad the gramisafi cf accused Na.1-Firm and
aaized cash will No.1 under Panchanama: recorded
an
tha statamenta at Accused Ne.2 and acgfifiéq No.1
was called anon tn fliscloae tug ~g¢qffie~.af
give a detailed rapfiy§ .Thé'3$m@is§ §§i$ saifia
fraua the stack",;n tfié' §§§miaa3fi bf :#~1 and the
aamplas on beifi§.$ubj%¢t§§ fig ghemical analysis
ware fguvfi tngfié éfiufiifigs finfi did not meet the
praS¢£1B§fii f§féfid%:dVf'é¢a}i£§. as such, a
c¢mp1@i@ff%gamafi;§fi" $g,E£ilad afi against tha
fiatitififlé:3{éc¢m$fid hérain slang with three athar
accuagfl, IE i$ fi@bmitted that accused No.5 has
_§§aan afiggittafi of the charges levelled against
tag: h9_wss mat raapansihle far the d;y ta
"i$._§c:ua&d Mm.5 is aLaq acquitted an thg ground
ID.
V
4
….. ..LI .1 _ ‘
‘uUfifiu Ha.q–Samsshekar 1
ti
dafid. A5 auun, it is only Accused Nas.1 to 3 w’
«DI
TIa:a in this revision getitiun challenging the
mrfiar ufi cmnvictiun and sentence.
}_DJ.xA.C|’–¢\–L/(—-
»_far~fiha husinass af fiha compamy alana wou¢a
«m
3. I havu heard the learned cgufisal for
tha gatitimnaza a5 wail as tha_fStata::Eubl;g
“Glut-I.-1|:-.Ia,._–ILH-*»-‘A l”‘
E & ‘IC’hF\l”Iu”od $”H’&u I
4. I have been tékenfitfirdugh thé$afiiflanc$””
am wall an tha orqahfi*§aasédVby_théffleurta beldw
and the dmcumenta rel§éd_uQun by_fih¢fprosecution
in the caaa.
fl. .li$ ififl%¢fi§wfidQfi,fi§1%$e learnefi counael
far €th§ _§%t§fiigQ§r_’th§tV_t£§ avarments in the
c¢mpl§ifi£if;ladtfifida$ 5aEtion 2&0 do net reveal
$3 :tm wfiifih %§f.’iha accused parsons were
clay to day lausinesa of the
i an
(_1’F”F’nwri’.ng -ma 3–mr n I””nrnn:n~.tr {“11” an ‘I’-“-i rm ‘Phi: naawuznn-I:
J-nil’ .i’fJ’in”1-0… win”, Bf.” ‘# “fl”‘III-nffilllll Jfdn. 1 L infill” Hid? n7H’&Z”U’IIZ
fiafibwnaihie fur any offences cammitted.
6. I have haan taken through the averments
warm ht is mafia in tha
–1
day’ tam: day business 0f the Patitzianar…h’c;_P1+firm.
It 1 -32- Ten .:ar*’|m~i +’+-nril Hr lb H? 1′ gm *-ha ‘ fr.-rcmuu
NUDE-l -PI-§hI”\l” |£’fl§I|IOél\”I’-I”UI DJ’: In I ‘V I In I!’ II V 1′!
..;……….. … .. .5. ‘ Jill’; ..\..’|…..a.. L… ..n..’ –I …..J.. …………..A…a..i .. …….. 4,-Q .-1. u
E7 ‘3 L.L11|$i ‘wJ ‘ J K.-JJVHB J15 HHLKJ J] Lu flfl[~.i’v-d– band; I €151!” 2′? II
.. .._. *3 450 _,n-19 AJV’
pati’!:i«:1hm;~ M-.:n.i—firm,’ vé’hhtéhdVed
that L;chd«ar.” Rule 55A”V”rrrf’r»tha «hh:riVVVvI.”rosma’cVri.cs
Rules, was {£_arHIrJ.as”). the
cflrzmum.-anrtsa, whi’¢h~.”V marked DY the
VVJPE are not proved
and 9;r;’£’é;_};-Virhvss’E:g_ra.§:1′.:_V:-A.__jT~~hg4.rV_a::”1&’a,s’ za pratest f car marking
at —- 3~Lh1’l”J§v pretest has been heated
‘atv rewarding the; evidence and
t:he”>2_:_a}id “ti-_::i:ume.h'”{:s are marked auhjact ta proof.
The aa3′.”r’.:~;~..::=’.=~’1cH:.w::e:-+.’-3 have mat been ant”!-!’rr’-mré 1.2:: be
pi-Laci’uEtic«rL m; t
hm u-‘3w-u-up’: mun In-1-r and; man nu? 4-‘h.u.|5n. -an-u-Minn:-I Irma!-lana-II-Lu
‘0]. ‘u”’; . ‘..:’h«ffi.’..LWK’ II-4′)’ EU-I-J’ VJJW ‘Ia’:-L DJJWQU fi.’..r\-rld-i3W’u|. b|’VJ-9′-\-IJIDI
the’ .«:.}?:.n1at::am::=3 -:3f the sri-hcuttt-ants in quaation. Than
hrhductimh mf the partnership deed by itself
E-‘wmsrlnfi L’1|:”‘iL eatzatztlish that any cane nssf these accused
ia guilty hf the affenc.-as for which they are
charghd. It is furth-ar smhmittad that in another
car:-9 fil-Eattfi againht the. patitianar–ac:c:u5ad, along
with E1ar:.313 sstatamant, the accused parscms
grmduaad three invaicas. These dacuméfitg havn
fiacumanta prafiucafl ifi afiefifiar c#$a; HfiifihV hava
haan taken inta acaafin£’in £ha p¢§s$fi£ ¢ésa.VVAs
auch, placing :e;;an¢é fiéa hat pfihmiaéibla in law
and the aame Haa éffe§tfi§ f;fi&; finding uf the
trial flmufifig
:?,i f?ef”‘:§fii:a;* tfié learned fitate Puhlic
Ehaaefiufinr éummitted that under Section Ed, each
mne mf thg*§cfiu3&d is responsibla far the day to
_§ay Lfiffiairé Ac: “fiha firm. or campany’ and every
9pg§san ifi+eharga af the cumgany’ wauld be
‘ -reafifingihle and the burden is on the accused to
. efitaE;i§fi that the offense was n¢t within his
‘kfiawihmge at that he exercised due diligence to
x *gugbévant cammissian at suah affanca. He also
suhmittad that tha gartnarship dead produced in
Vha caka wnuld alga: U eatab;i§h that each an;
such nothing mnra was sugpasad to ha prn§e§ when
the deed speak: fur itself making aafin gnfi gt the
0
‘_!-II’
gartnnr in the firm re3ggnsible~ann.lia§le;”
‘FI’iI’|+’1″u|l,nl|”‘ -gunk-am-‘u -l–§’-at-41 +1-\.:u+- I-D-‘hm: -i’.1_.1I-‘.’a!-14 ‘run-.4-9rI’lV:’1u-u.anr-7′!
.l.’.aIJ- ‘co-JJ’ir.|« u.n”JIM’l.LI-.I-‘h”0.’V’I.-I t.-uvt-» VUJJTJ .1-JaVV’U’_.I-‘I-“$9–_ taraq. wafuuygfilui
1
thn ac£u5.r
gruducad along with 3n§tian.Eii4Statnnént, tnéra
was nnthing wmnnq ‘in n@;nting fltgfiignca on the
invoicns yrodunnfit éninfltgbnta nth: accused who
yrmdumgg it on tnntt nwntnndznnt at the instance
Gf :fih§n_i#3?3€§H§iflD7_i$n§»wmcantand$ that the
cnmvifitinng and ;aan:an¢a dues net call far
ifltarfnréncé in tna grasant revisian patitian.
LE” v.93 mntitulnus analysis nf the evidence
“inn rncnrn} mare garticulaxly, the statement given
V ~.hytP{w;1 that he did nnt ascertain as to whu wan
.Vt:fisfifinfiinle far the day to may affairs qf the
‘gétitimner Nn.1–Firm and as thara is no averment
V’=,_insthn cnmplaint in the said regard, in viaw of
‘jsactiun 34 nf the nruga and Cnsmatics Act and
alsn in viaw cf the law laifi down by the Han’hla
I
.54’
10 ‘
swnma aw mmnvnmn .vs. ERJJ LAL MITTALWAflfi QTHERS
regertad in AIR 1968 ac 232? and :55-d§§ié§én uf
na allegation to ifi§icata~=fihaf: é §érfiicfilar
parsmn was inecharge bf §fifi_ra5fibnai$1a for the
flay tn day a£f$ir§’dfjfihe:fi§fipaqy er the conduct
uf thfi.hu$ina3§w§£§tfi§Efi;§m:fiE the company, the
prnsgafitififi $5 §g§i§st him §$uld be liabla ta he
quashéd;’3; n§1dfififié§ gfian in this case, on the
ésid- fiEéun§;9 fifi%,’prasagution as against the
patitiwnef5’ié.ii§flie to he quashed.
x9. h*Rg regards the marking uf the dacumant,
“w.Ex;P1 fin 96, I hold that meta marking at the said
“ajdficfifiafit% would not prove all tha contents cf the
n
1/”
‘$$@d fiacument$: They shnuld have been pmuved as
‘”=,_pEhvidad under Rule 55A mf tha Hulas and as such
‘ 1 held that tha aaid dacumants are not proved in
tha instant casa. Furthar more, the trial Judge
P I I I
e.1t1ane:3–accu3ed in another
gL»€J~–‘L/L g
‘E!
3’!
{J
£3.
‘.2:
fl
fill
£2.
5?
£1′
:3′
{B
‘3
: $1L3DHART§i’-..1E’E§i§il!..h*?;im4′
cnsn ‘withnut giving a fair oppartunitjg tn .tha
gntitimnens–accuaed and withqut ascqftainin§.from
them an tn whather they Lwfild :$l,nug@n’€he’3;i¢.
.. …… .. 4-1-u ‘
¢Jffi¢fl%3 nr nun grasant cane alga. Planing
…. -11 . ‘_’|.
‘and without nvan bringing it tn fihé natiha af Eha
accused and taking tn: nfinfiagd nfi”surnrise wuuld
defaat the rignn yeapefififiltng accused to defend
his r:aag,j;:Vn:na :n%n:+.»:.~;.;;n the trial cum:
shnunn nay nnna gniind nnnn nna invaicas pruducad
by thnVnéni;inn§rn?éflnQ3nH in anather case, which
has manning tn fin in-the present caaa. on these
gruunnnvrnfébbedftn above, the revision petition
_§:i;gd by.nné pntitionera herein has to be allowed
i; ._ ‘V..t.'{ .. 4-» 1a. . ‘ ._
. ~w1nnn.unurna uelnu’nra llahla
.;3 ands: -f cnnvfictign and santencg gagged
i’-A
tn!-I
ifl. Henna, I pass the fallowing:–
GRDIR
The reviaiun getitian is
allowed. The arder nf conviction
and santanca panned my the courts
halow are set aside. ifla \
12
The patitianarswaccuaad ‘ ér&-
aaryuitted am’? the charges 1.~:~’va’1’1′-an’:
against tham.
The mail hands ezafimfieg by th£ a»
-nu.-1.4–: ‘”1′ n,nnw.m a’n.’-I1 1 Jul 1111′ l’.!l3″.)’\,1′.!’£n’I:A”Il ‘; .
L-WW3 L-L L:-J: |–.dll.u.l. WI i3|-.5-final-J-. W E’–‘pl ‘
The fine amfiupt, if an§”pai@ by
the petiti@na:5_EhEll. be*-g Lrqeq
tn them, =a V ‘ 2