STATE REP. BY THE DRUGS INSPECTOR versus MANIMARAN

STATE REP. BY THE DRUGS INSPECTOR versus MANIMARAN

Admissions in documentary evidence established offence under ss. 18(c), 27(b)(ii), and 28, and non-examination of shop owner and licence holder did not vitiate prosecution. Carbon copies are admissible as primary evidence, and signatures alleged to be obtained on blank papers were not substantiated. Sentence reduced...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: State Rep. by the Drugs Inspector; Respondent: Manimaran
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Licensing for Drug Sale, Revisional Jurisdiction, Primary Evidence, Sentencing
Criminal Law Drug Regulation Drugs and Cosmetics Act Licensing for Drug Sale Revisional Jurisdiction Primary Evidence Sentencing

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State Rep. by the Drugs Inspector

Appellant

Manimaran

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-examination of shop owner and pharmacy licence holder is fatal to prosecution under Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
  2. 2 Whether carbon copies can be accepted as primary evidence under Evidence Act.
  3. 3 Whether sentence of imprisonment should be reduced under proviso to s.27(b)(ii).

Ratio Decidendi

Admissions in documentary evidence established offence under ss. 18(c), 27(b)(ii), and 28, and non-examination of shop owner and licence holder did not vitiate prosecution. Carbon copies are admissible as primary evidence, and signatures alleged to be obtained on blank papers were not substantiated. Sentence reduced under proviso to s.27(b)(ii) due to no prior conviction and ten-year-old offence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Conviction under ss. 27(b)(ii) and 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act affirmed
  • Sentence of imprisonment reduced from one year to three months