Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s. Padma Pharmaceuticals and its partner Arun Kumar C. Patil, were convicted under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for allegedly selling misbranded drugs. The Drug Inspector had conducted a raid and seized samples, which were sent for testing. The trial court convicted them, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. In revision, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution had not complied with the mandatory sampling and testing procedures under the Act and Rules. The court noted that the samples were not drawn in the prescribed manner, and the testing was not done as per the rules. The court held that the burden was on the prosecution to prove compliance, and failure to do so vitiates the conviction. Accordingly, the revision petition was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the petitioners were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Misbranding - Section 27(b)(ii) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sampling and Testing Procedure - The prosecution alleged that the petitioners sold misbranded drugs, but failed to prove compliance with mandatory sampling and testing procedures under the Act and Rules. The court held that non-compliance with these procedures vitiates the conviction, as the burden is on the prosecution to establish procedural compliance. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Section 397 Cr.P.C - Scope - The High Court in revision can re-appreciate evidence to correct manifest illegality or perversity. The court found that the lower courts had not properly appreciated the evidence regarding procedural lapses. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the petitioners under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is sustainable when the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory sampling and testing procedures prescribed under the Act and Rules.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2012 passed in C.C.No.185/2004 by the JMFC Court, Afzalpur, and confirmed by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Criminal Appeal No.31/2012 on 04.09.2018. The petitioners were acquitted of the offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Law Points
- Mandatory compliance with sampling and testing procedures under Drugs and Cosmetics Act
- 1940
- Burden of proof on prosecution to establish procedural compliance
- Non-compliance vitiates conviction
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (02) 70
CRL.RP No. 200077 of 2018
Mahadev S. Patil (for petitioners), Veeranagouda Malipatil (HCGP for respondent)
M/s. Padma Pharmaceuticals and Arun Kumar C. Patil
The State through Drug Inspector, Gulbarga Circle Office
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition against conviction under Section 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for misbranding of drugs.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were convicted for selling misbranded drugs based on a raid by the Drug Inspector.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (JMFC, Afzalpur) convicted the petitioners in C.C.No.185/2004 on 22.02.2012, sentencing them to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5,000 each. The appellate court (I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi) confirmed the conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No.31/2012 on 04.09.2018.
Issues
Whether the prosecution complied with the mandatory sampling and testing procedures under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules.
Whether the conviction under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is sustainable in the absence of such compliance.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the prosecution failed to follow the mandatory sampling and testing procedures prescribed under the Act and Rules.
Respondent argued that the procedures were complied with and the conviction was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution must strictly comply with the mandatory sampling and testing procedures under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules. Non-compliance vitiates the conviction, as the burden is on the prosecution to prove procedural compliance.
Judgment Excerpts
This criminal revision petition under Sections 397 of Cr.P.C is filed to set aside conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2018 passed by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Criminal Appeal No.31/2012 were in confirmed the conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2012 passed in C.C.No.185/2004 by the Learned JMFC Court, Afzalpur for simple imprisonment for period of one year each and also pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence p/u/ Sec. 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act-1940 by allowing the revision petition.
Procedural History
The Drug Inspector filed a complaint leading to C.C.No.185/2004 before the JMFC Court, Afzalpur, which convicted the petitioners on 22.02.2012. The petitioners appealed to the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Criminal Appeal No.31/2012, which confirmed the conviction on 04.09.2018. The petitioners then filed the present criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, which was heard and reserved on 14.02.2025 and pronounced on 20.02.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: 27(b)(ii)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 397
