- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4959 CRL.RP No. 100219 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100219 OF 2016 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHIVANAND S/O. SIDDAPPA DANAPPANAVAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. HUNASHIKATTI, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DRUGS INSPECTOR, BELAGAVI CIRCLE, REPTED BY ADDL. S.P.P., S.P.P. OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED IS U/SEC. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29/02/2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BAILHONGAL IN C.C. NO. 983/2006 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED 16/08/2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 38/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.27 10:53:48 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4959 CRL.RP No. 100219 of 2016 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Santosh B. Malagouder and Sri. Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP for respondent-State. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.983/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940 confirmed in Crl.A.No.38/2016 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the revision petitioner are as under: 3.1 Jurisdictional Drug Inspector filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging the Commission of offence under Section 18(c) R/W Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by contending that on 22.08.2005, there was a raid in the shop with a name and style Ganesh Medical and General Stores belonging to the accused at Hunasikatti. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4959 CRL.RP No. 100219 of 2016 The raid is on account of credible information and after purchasing schedule ’H’ drug from the said Ganesh Medicals. 3.2 On receipt of the private complaint, trial Magistrate after completing necessary formalities summoned the accused and framed the charges. Accused pleaded not guilty. 3.3 Therefore trial held. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, 8 witnesses were examined comprising of head of the raid party, sub-staff and panch witnesses. 3.4 Prosecution placed on record 47 documents, which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to P.47 besides marking 4 material objects. 3.5 Detailed cross examination of prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive result. Admittedly, decoy was sent with a currency note to purchase the schedule ’H’ drug from the shop of the accused which was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4959 CRL.RP No. 100219 of 2016 sold by the accused without prescription and without proper billing. 3.6 During the course of raid, it is also noticed that the license was not there in the shop to conduct business of drugs and cosmetics in Ganesh medicals. Accused failed to furnish any suitable explanation at the time of recording the accused statement nor placed any written submissions as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 3.7 Accused also failed to place defense evidence on record to establish that he had valid license and he sold the M.O.1B after receiving Rs.10/- from the decoy and M.0.1E and they classification of M.O.1. 3.8 Thus, learned trial Magistrate on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record noted that prosecution is successful in establishing the charges levelled against the accused as admittedly accused sold M.O.1 tablets without prescription which is scheduled ‘H‘ drug and the report issued by the competent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4959 CRL.RP No. 100219 of 2016 authority vide exhibit P.42 confirm that the sample was a drug which is classified as schedule H drug. Therefore convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 27(b)(ii) and imposed minimum sentence of one year and fine of Rs.5000/- with default sentence of 6 months. For the offence under Section 28, learned trial judge again imposed 6 months simple imprisonment and Rs.1000/- fine with default sentence and directed that sentences should run concurrently. 3.9 Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.38/2016. 4.0 Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of a parties in detail in the light of the appeal grounds and dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. While confirming the order of conviction and sentence, learned judge in the First Appellate Court took note of the principles of law enunciated in various judicial pronouncements of different - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4959 CRL.RP No. 100219 of 2016 High Courts and then held that, facts and circumstances do not warrant acquittal of the accused as well as there was no scope for reduction of sentence. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 5. Sri.Santosh B. Malagouder, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that both the Courts are not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the revision petitioner resulting in miscarriage of justice. 6. He also pointed out that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are interested testimonies. Therefore, trial Magistrate ought to have exercised extra care and caution in appreciating such evidence on record and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Alternatively, Sri.Santosh B. Malagouder submits that in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the health condition of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4959 CRL.RP No. 100219 of 2016 petitioner who is now bedridden and after the incident, he has no avocation in life and his eking out his livelihood by the mercy of the others, Court may consider his request and set aside the imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 8. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavar, supports the impugned judgments. 9. He would further contend that before the raid took place in the shop of the accused, a decoy was sent with a 10 rupee note to find out whether the credible information received by the head of the raid party being the Drug Inspector is a true information or not. 10. Decoy who took 10 rupee note went to the shop of the accused and purchased M.O.1 tablets. Admittedly, accused has sold the same without the prescription. M.O.1 is admittedly schedule ’H’ drug which cannot be sold without the prescription. Therefore, the raid has taken place and necessary panchnama has been drafted which has been established before the trial Court in proper - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4959 CRL.RP No. 100219 of 2016 manner and thus the order of recording of conviction of the accused is just and proper. 11. Further, he pointed out that as on the date of incident, accused did not possess the valid license to conduct the business of sale of drugs and cosmetics in the shop Ganesh medicals, which is also established by placing necessary evidence on record and therefore, conviction of the accused is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 12. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavar contend that the learned trial Magistrate has granted minimum punishment of one year and fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics act,1940, so also for the offence under Section 28, learned trial Magistrate has granted only six months imprisonment which requires no further modification from this Court in the absence of any special reason and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4959 CRL.RP No. 100219 of 2016 13. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration of this Court. i.Whether revision petitioner would make out the case that the impugned judgment are suffering from legal infirmities, perversity and patent factual error and sought for interference? ii.Whether the sentence needs modification? iii.What order? Regarding Point No.1: 15. In the case on hand, seizure of the M.O.1-cover with tablets stands established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. Admittedly, head of the raid party or other sub-staff or punch witnesses did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity so as to foist a false case against the revision petition. 16. Further, admittedly as on the date of incident the accused did not posses the valid license to transact in the Drugs and Cosmetics in Ganesh medicals. Therefore, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4959 CRL.RP No. 100219 of 2016 necessary ingredients having been established by the prosecution, trial Magistrate was justified in recording the order of conviction against the accused. 17. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, even after considering the legal principles enunciated in various judgements of the High Court, dealt in detail about the factual aspects of the matter and on re-appreciation, upheld the order of conviction. 18. Having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any compelling reason so as to revisit into the factual aspects of the matter to upset the findings recorded by trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court insofar as the conviction of the accused person for the aforesaid offences. In view of the foregoing discussions, point number.1 is answered in the negative. Regarding point No.2: 19. In the case on hand, it is submitted at the bar that the accused is now suffering from serious medical - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4959 CRL.RP No. 100219 of 2016 ailments. After the incident has occurred, he has also close down the business of medical shop. 20. Further, according to the revision petitioner, he is now under the mercy of his relatives for his livelihood. Taking note of these aspects of the mitigating circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is the apt case where fine amount can be enhanced and sentence of imprisonment may be set aside by directing that the custody period already undergone by the accused be treated as period of imprisonment by resorting to the proviso to section 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.3. 21. In view of finding of this Court point Nos.1 and 2, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed in part. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4959 CRL.RP No. 100219 of 2016 (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under section 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940, sentence is modified as under: (a) Custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment on the condition that accused shall pay enhanced fine of Rs.50,000/- in 2 instalments. First instalment of Rs.25,000/- is to be paid on or before 30.04.2025 and second instalment of Rs.25,000/- on or before 30.05.2025. (b) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount as stated above, would automatically result in restoration of the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4959 CRL.RP No. 100219 of 2016 (iii) Office is directed to return the trial Court records with the copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36