Summary
The Supreme Court restored convictions for stocking and selling drugs without a licence and failing to disclose their source. The accused’s admissions and the inspector’s evidence established the offences; non-examination of former owners was not fatal. The High Court improperly displaced concurrent factual findings in revision. Applying the historical sentencing proviso to the 2008 offence, the Court reduced imprisonment from one year to three months and maintained the Rs.5,000 fine.
Issues
- Whether the evidence established unlicensed drug sales and non-disclosure despite non-examination of earlier owners.
- Whether the High Court properly interfered with concurrent findings in revision.
- Whether the prison sentence warranted reduction under the applicable proviso.
Provisions considered
- Section 18(c), Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940Stocking or storing drugs for sale without the requisite licence had to be established; the inspector’s evidence and the accused’s admissions proved that contravention. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Section 27(b)(ii) and proviso, as applicable to the 2008 offence, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940The Court invoked the historical power to impose a shorter sentence for adequate and special reasons, considering elapsed time, absence of prior conviction and the circumstances recorded. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Section 62, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The carbon copies admitted in this case could be considered as primary evidence; their admission disclosed no infirmity. (¶ 14)
Held
- Admissions in the accused’s replies established purchase and operation of the shop without a valid licence. His failure to disclose the supplier also supported the prosecution. Examination of the former licence-holder and shop owner was unnecessary in those circumstances. (¶¶ 9, 10, 12, 13)
- The objection that signatures had been obtained on blank papers was rejected as an afterthought, and the Court found no error in admitting the carbon copies relied on. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Revision is distinct from appeal. Concurrent factual findings ordinarily should not be displaced absent perversity or ignored material evidence; the High Court’s interference here was unjustified. (¶ 16)
- The convictions under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 were restored. Imprisonment was reduced to three months and the Rs.5,000 fine maintained. Surrender was required within four weeks, failing which custody was directed. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Result
State appeal allowed. High Court acquittal set aside; convictions restored with imprisonment reduced to three months and Rs.5,000 fine maintained. Surrender within four weeks, failing which custody.