Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 11th March 1999 passed by the Special Judge at Latur in E.C. Act Case No. 16 of 1991, which acquitted the respondents (original accused) of charges under Clause 18 punishable under Section 26 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 read with Section 3 and Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The case arose from a complaint by Dr. B.V. Tote alleging that on 9th September 1990, his patient Ravindra Biradar was overcharged Rs. 7/- for six Ledermycin 300 tablets purchased from M/s. Shrinivas Medical Stores, Udgir. The Drugs Inspector, Shri B.R. Masal, inspected the shop on 14th September 1990 and found overcharging of approximately Rs. 6/-. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the complaint was not filed by an authorized officer and no sanction for prosecution was obtained as required under the Essential Commodities Act. The High Court, in appeal, examined the procedural requirements and held that the Drugs Inspector was not authorized to file the complaint under the Act, and the absence of sanction was fatal. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove the exact contravention. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Essential Commodities Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 7(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 3 - The prosecution must be initiated by an authorized officer and prior sanction must be obtained; failure to do so vitiates the trial. In this case, the complaint was filed by a Drugs Inspector who was not authorized under the Act, and no sanction was obtained, leading to acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Drugs (Prices Control) Order - Contravention - Clause 18 read with Section 26 - Overcharging of Rs. 6/- for Ledermycin tablets alleged; however, the prosecution failed to prove the exact contravention due to lack of proper evidence and procedural compliance. (Paras 2-5) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 - The appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and law. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents for contravention of Clause 18 punishable under Section 26 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 read with Section 3 and Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was proper in the absence of valid sanction and authorized complaint.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge at Latur in E.C. Act Case No. 16 of 1991 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Essential Commodities Act
- 1955
- Section 7(1)(a)(ii)
- Section 3
- Drugs (Prices Control) Order
- 1987
- Clause 18
- Section 26
- sanction for prosecution
- authorized officer
- Drugs Inspector
- burden of proof
- procedural compliance
