*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA + CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.604 OF 2009 % 27.07.2026 # 1. DR.CHITIRALA SATYANARAYANA, S/O CH.HANUMANTHA RAO PRAJA VAIDYASHALA D.NO.29-1071 PALNAD ROAD, VINUKONDA ...PETITIONER And: $ 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ...RESPONDENT !Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi ^Counsel for the respondent : Sri Panini Somayaji Addl. Public Prosecutor <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: -2- CRL.R.C. No.604 OF 2009 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * CRL.R.C. No:604 /2009 DATE OF ORDER: 27.07.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Yes/No _____________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA,J -3- CRL.R.C. No.604 OF 2009 Date of reserved for orders : 10.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 27.07.2026 Date of uploading : 27.07.2026 APHC010029992009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 604/2009 Between: Dr.Chitirala Satyanarayana ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A.P ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: 1. The instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction passed in Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2008, dated 08.04.2009, on the file of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming the order of conviction, dt.30.06.2008, passed -4- CRL.R.C. No.604 OF 2009 by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda, in C.C.No.145 of 2007. 2. The petitioner was found guilty by learned trial court for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 27(b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, (for short, ‘the Act’) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In appeal, the order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by learned appellate Court. Hence, the instant Criminal Revision Case. 3. The facts of the prosecution case, in a nutshell, are as follows: 3.1. P.W.1, being the Drug Inspector, on 23.02.2006, visited Praja Vydyasala, situated at Palnadu Road, Vinukonda, in the presence of mediators (P.Ws.2 & 3) and found petitioner was in possession of a huge quantity of drugs in a shelf of one room of a building. For stocking of such huge quantity of drugs, petitioner was unable to produce any valid licence to carry on business. Accordingly, the said drugs were seized by P.W.1 under Form-16 notice in the presence of the mediators. Thereafter, the seized drugs were produced before the Court on the very same day. Though petitioner was questioned to disclose the source of supply of the drugs, he failed to furnish any particulars. Thus, after obtaining necessary sanction, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 18(c), 18-A and 22(1) (cca) of the Act, punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Act. -5- CRL.R.C. No.604 OF 2009 3.2. During investigation, it appears that the petitioner was an employee under P.W.4, as a Pharmacist in his business namely Sanjeevani Medical Agencies. During the course of trial, prosecution examined the Drug Inspector as P.W.1. The mediators i.e., P.Ws.2 and 3 gone hostile. The proprietor of Sanjeevani Medical Agencies was examined as P.W.4. He deposed that the petitioner was a Pharmacist in his shop, attending duty regularly from 10.30 AM to 1.30 PM and 2.00 PM to 7.00 PM, also deposed that the statement made by him before P.W.1 was true and correct. 4. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submits that there is no evidence regarding the seizure of the huge quantity of drugs from the possession of the petitioner by P.W.1. Moreover, at the time of seizure, P.W.1 mentioned an incorrect door number in the seizure proceedings, which was subsequently corrected under mediatornama. However, such correction was never been properly proved through evidence of mediator. 4.2. Learned counsel further submits that learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has recorded the conviction on the basis of sole testimony of P.W.1. The other accused person, who was the owner of Praja Vydyasala, was initially arrayed as an accused in the case. However, the -6- CRL.R.C. No.604 OF 2009 criminal proceedings against A.2 were subsequently quashed by this Court vide criminal petition for quashing. 4.3. He further submits that learned appellate court has not properly scanned the evidence. Thus, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is liable to be set aside. 5. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5.1. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, though the mediators turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.1 is clinching and satisfactory. Thus, conviction can be recorded on the basis of sole testimony of P.W.1. 5.2. It is further submitted by the State that there are no explanation from the petitioner as to how such a huge quantity of drugs was in possession of petitioner at that point of time. So, there is no scope to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by learned trial court and learned appellate court and prayed to dismiss the criminal revision case. 6. OBSERVATIONS OF THIS COURT: 6.1. Upon hearing of the parties and after thorough perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for unauthorized stocking of drugs. Section 18(a) of the Act prohibits stocking, sale or distribution of drugs without sanction or licence of the government concerned. The prosecution case is that P.W.1, Drug Inspector, having received credible information that the petitioner was -7- CRL.R.C. No.604 OF 2009 carrying on the business of stocking drugs from an unauthorised medical shop, alleged to have raid a room in the house situated in Praja Vydyasala at Palnadu Road, Vinukonda, in the presence of mediators. During inspection, he found a stock of drugs kept in the shelf of the said room. Thus, the drugs were seized under Form-16. 6.2. It is evident from Form-16 that the door number of the room from which the drugs were allegedly seized was mentioned as Door No.29- 1075. Thereafter, P.W.1 addressed a letter to the Director of Drugs Control on 04.03.2006 seeking necessary permission and sanction for prosecution. In the said communication also, he specifically mentioned that the drugs were seized from Room No.29-1075 situated at Praja Vydyasala. Surprisingly, the prosecution case subsequently disclosed that the actual room number from which the drugs were allegedly seized in Door No.29-1071 and not Door No.29-1075. The explanation offered by the prosecution is that the incorrect door number was recorded erroneously, but it was corrected by the mediators as Door No.29-1071. 6.3. Though the mediators (P.Ws.2 and 3) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile, but the mediatornama was on record. On a perusal of mediatornama in the trial court record, it appears that such mediatornama was recorded on 23.02.2006. But in the subsequent documents, including the communication addressed by P.W.1 to the Director of Drugs Control Administration, dt.04.03.2006 for securing -8- CRL.R.C. No.604 OF 2009 sanction for prosecution, also mentioned as Door No.29-1075. In order to establish an offence relating to unauthorised stocking of drugs, the prosecution is required to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the drugs were recovered from the possession of the accused. 6.4. In the present case, but for testimony of P.W.1, there are no direct and independent evidence establishing that the drugs were seized from the possession of the petitioner. Moreover, in Form 16 as well as other documents mentioned the erroneous door number. The explanation of the prosecution that the erroneous door number was corrected in the mediatornama was also not properly proved and the same fact is also not correct as the later documents also mentioned the wrong door number. 6.5. On the other hand, though P.W.1 is stated to have addressed a letter to A.2 seeking particulars regarding the occupation of the room by the petitioner, no document regarding possession or occupation of the premises by petitioner has been produced before the learned trial court to prove that the petitioner was in possession of that room at that relevant point of time as tenant or permissive possession etc. 6.6. On the above analogy, it appears that the seizure effected by P.W.1, the Drug Inspector, on 23.02.2006 at Praja Vydyasala, the alleged seizure of the drugs from the possession of the petitioner have not been properly proved by the prosecution. If the possession of the petitioner is not -9- CRL.R.C. No.604 OF 2009 proved, the offence alleged against the petitioner cannot be said to have been proved. 6.7. Learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court lost sight of the evidentiary value of the testimony of P.W.1 and its legal effect. The conviction on the basis of solitary testimony of the Drug Inspector against any person if allowed to continue, the said authority may have the supreme power to falsely implicate any person for the commission of unauthorized stock of drugs. Furthermore, the prosecution also failed to produce any witness to establish the manner in which the physician samples were allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner. The prosecution also failed to adduce any evidence of Doctor as to the source from which the petitioner allegedly obtained the said drugs (physician sample). 6.8. Under the above observation, it appears to me that conviction and sentence against petitioner under section 27(d)(ii) of the said Act, recorded by learned trial court and affirmed by learned appellate court is illegal and improper. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision case has got merit and is liable to be allowed. 6.9. Hence, the instant criminal revision case is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda, in C.C. No.145 of 2007, dated 30.06.2008, -10- CRL.R.C. No.604 OF 2009 confirmed by learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2008, dated 08.04.2009, is hereby set aside. 6.10. The petitioner be acquitted of the charge under Section 27(d)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him in accordance with law. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the petitioner shall stand cancelled, and the sureties, if any, shall stand discharged. 7. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this criminal revision case, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt. 27.07.2026 BV -11- CRL.R.C. No.604 OF 2009 Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No