IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 19/03/2002
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.396 of 1998
State rep. by
The Drug Inspector,
Madurai Circle, Madurai .. Appellant
Vs.
Dr.Anuradha Ramnath .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal against the Judgment dated 28.7.1997 in
C.C.No.202 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.
!For Appellant : Mr.E.Raja,
Addl.Public Prosecutor.
^For Respondent : Mr.A.V.Somasundaram, For
M/s.Lakshmipriya Associates.
:JUDGMENT
The Drug Inspector, the appellant herein, filed a complaint
against Dr.Anuradha Ramnath, the respondent/accused, for the offence
under Section 18(c) r/w. 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The
case ended in acquittal. Hence, this appeal against acquittal.
2. The brief facts are as follows:-
“(a) The complainant, Sivapunniam (P.W.1), the Drug Inspector, on
22 .9.1995, inspected M/s.Mahalakshmi Pharama, Madurai, who is having a
drug licence to deal with wholesale business. During inspection, it was
found that they sold A.C.D. Solution to Dr.Anuradha Ramnath in violation
of the licensing condition that it should be sold to the licensed blood
bank only.
(b) Based on the said particulars, P.W.1 along with other Drug Inspector,
inspected the Clinic of the accused, “Ramradha Nursing Home”, on
22.9.1995 at about 1.30 P.M. During inspection, it was found that 7
bottles of A.C.D. Solution, which is the raw material for manufacturing
blood, were stocked.
(c) The accused gave a statement that she purchased 67 bottles of A.
C.D. Solution from Mahalakshmi Pharma and out of the 64 bottles, she
used 57 bottles for mixing with the blood collected from the donors and
administered the same to her patients for pre and post operative surgery.
(d) Since the said Nursing Home does not have the licence to operate
blood bank, a show cause notice was issued to the accused. Since the
explanation given by the accused was not satisfactory, P.W.1, the
complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed a complaint against the
accused for the offence under Section 18(c) r/w.27(b)(ii) of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act.”
3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined,
Exs.P-1 to P-8 were filed and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. During the
questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that she did
not commit the offence.
4. The trial Court, after considering the materials, acquitted
the accused mainly on the ground that there is no evidence to show that
the A.C.D. Solution was stocked for sale and as such, the accused is
entitled to acquittal.
5. Challenging the said finding of acquittal, Mr.E.Raja, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by referring about various
provisions of the Act and reading out the relevant portions of the
evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.P-2 confession statement of the
accused, would state that the finding given by the trial Court is wrong.
6. I heard Mr.A.V.Somasundaram, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent.
7. Though several grounds have been urged by the respective
parties while making an attempt to substantiate their pleas, I am of the
view that the acquittal can be sustained on a short ground.
8. According to Ex.P-8 sanction, the prosecution was directed to
be launched under Section 18(c) r/w.27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act for having manufactured whole human blood without any valid drug
licence. In the complaint filed by the appellant, it is stated that the
accused, Dr.Anuradha Ramnath, purchased 64 bottles of A.C.D. Solution,
which is meant only the for licensed blood bank, from Mahalakshmi Pharma
and out of the said 64 bottles, she blended whole human blood and
transfused using 57 bottles of A.C.D. Solution, after manufacturing
blood.
9. The charge framed by the trial Court would reveal that she
was accused of having stocked the raw material for manufacturing blood
and after manufacture, she sold or distributed the same to her patients
for wrongful gain.
10. It may be true that 7 bottles of A.C.D. Solution were
recovered from the clinic run by the accused, but there is no material to
show that with that A.C.D. Solution, the blood was manufactured and sold
or distributed to the patients, in view of the fact that no attempt was
made by the Drug Inspector to obtain statement from those patients in
order to prove either sale or distribution.
11. Furthermore, the accusation mentioned in the sanction,
complaint and the charge is not consistent.
12. As laid down in the decisions in (1) LOGANATHAN v. STATE
(1992 M.L.J. (Crl.) 126); (2) DRUG INSPECTOR v. ELIAS M. PALAL ( 1987
M.L. J. (Crl.) 334); (3) SANAT KUMAR BASU v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
(1984 ( Crl.L.J. 931); and (4) MOHD. SHABBIR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(AIR 1979 S.C. 564), the mere possession of drugs without the evidence
to show that they were stocked for sale or distribution may not attract
the relevant penal Section.
13. As noted above, the prosecution has relied upon Ex.P-2
confession statement, which has been subsequently retracted by the
accused in Ex.P-7 reply.
14. Under those circumstances, merely on the basis of Ex.P-2
confession statement, it cannot be said that the offence alleged against
the accused is proved. Therefore, the acquittal is liable to be
sustained.
15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
19-3-2002
Index: Yes [I]
dpp
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Madurai.
2. -do- Thro’ The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.
3. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
4. The Drug Inspector, Madurai Circle, Madurai.
M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.396 of 1998
19-3-2002