Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka, through the Drug Inspector, Hassan Circle, filed a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 01.04.2015 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan in C.C.No.3659/2014, and the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Hassan in Crl.A.No.129/2015. The respondent, S.B. Shivashankar, owner of Shri Padmamba Medical, was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for selling spurious drugs. The Trial Court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one day till the rising of the court and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment. The State appealed against the inadequacy of the sentence, but the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. The State then filed the present revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence. The High Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the Trial Court had already convicted the respondent and that the only issue was the quantum of sentence. The court observed that the fine of Rs.10,000 was inadequate given the serious nature of the offence involving spurious drugs, which affects public health. The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the orders of the lower courts only insofar as the sentence of fine, and enhanced the fine from Rs.10,000 to Rs.50,000. The default sentence was also modified to simple imprisonment for six months. The court directed the respondent to pay the enhanced fine within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sentence Enhancement - Section 27(d) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Adequacy of Sentence - The State challenged the inadequacy of sentence imposed on the respondent/accused for selling spurious drugs - The Trial Court had imposed a fine of Rs.10,000 and one day's imprisonment till rising of court, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court - The High Court held that the sentence was inadequate and enhanced the fine to Rs.50,000, considering the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court for the offence under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is adequate and warrants enhancement.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the orders of the Trial Court and Appellate Court only insofar as the sentence of fine, and enhanced the fine from Rs.10,000 to Rs.50,000. The default sentence was modified to simple imprisonment for six months. The respondent was directed to pay the enhanced fine within four weeks.
Law Points
- Sentence enhancement
- Section 27(d) Drugs and Cosmetics Act
- 1940
- Revision under Section 397 CrPC
- Adequate punishment
- Deterrent effect
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (08) 19
Criminal Revision Petition No.775 of 2018
Smt. Rashmi Jadhav (HCGP) for petitioner, Smt. Madhu R for Sri. K. Prasanna Shetty for respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition by the State against inadequacy of sentence imposed on the respondent for offence under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Remedy Sought
The State sought enhancement of the sentence imposed on the respondent/accused.
Filing Reason
The State considered the sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 and one day's imprisonment as inadequate for the offence of selling spurious drugs.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court in C.C.No.3659/2014 dated 01.04.2015 convicted the respondent and sentenced him to one day's imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs.10,000. The Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.129/2015 dated 16.02.2018 dismissed the State's appeal as not maintainable.
Issues
Whether the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is adequate for the offence under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Submissions/Arguments
The State argued that the sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 is inadequate and should be enhanced considering the gravity of the offence involving spurious drugs.
The respondent's counsel argued that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is adequate and does not warrant interference.
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 imposed for the offence under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for selling spurious drugs is inadequate and warrants enhancement to Rs.50,000 to serve as a deterrent and reflect the seriousness of the offence affecting public health.
Judgment Excerpts
The Trial Court in C.C.No.3659/2014 dated 1.4.2015 held the respondent / accused S.B. Shivakumar guilty for offences under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and he was sentenced to undergo a day’s imprisonment, till the rising of the Court.
The sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the Trial Court is inadequate and requires to be enhanced.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The order passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.3659/2014 dated 01.04.2015 and the order passed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.129/2015 dated 16.02.2018 are set aside only insofar as the sentence of fine is concerned.
Procedural History
The Trial Court (II Addl. Civil Judge, JMFC, Hassan) convicted the respondent in C.C.No.3659/2014 on 01.04.2015 and sentenced him to one day's imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000. The State appealed to the Sessions Court (V Addl. District and Sessions Court, Hassan) in Crl.A.No.129/2015, which dismissed the appeal on 16.02.2018 as not maintainable. The State then filed the present Criminal Revision Petition No.775/2018 before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: 27(d)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401, 374
