- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5910 CRL.RP No. 100324 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100324 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI PADMAVATI P. ROTTI AGE: 72 YEARS, RENUKA CLINIC, PLOT NO.330, 6TH CROSS, NAGENDRANMATTI, AT: HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.J. PEERJADE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ASSISTANT DRUGS EXAMINER, HAVERI CIRCLE, R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.PC., PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED CONVICTING THE PETITIONER OF THE OFFENCE UNDER (i)SEC.18(c) (ii)SEC.22(1)(cca) & (iii)SEC.18(A) BY THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HAVERI IN CC NO.222/2009 VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 22.08.2015 AND CONFIRMED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI IN CRL.APL.NO.84/2015 ON THE 16.09.2017 UNDER THE DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT 1940 BE SET ASIDE AND THE PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED OF ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED OFFENCES. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.04.09 11:36:49 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5910 CRL.RP No. 100324 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri M.J. Peerjade, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.222/2009 and sentenced as under: “Accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 18(C), 22(1) (cca) and Section 18(A) punishable u/S 27(b)(ii), 22(3) and 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 by acting U/S 248(2) of Cr.P.C. Accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- Accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 22(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and sentence to undergo - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5910 CRL.RP No. 100324 of 2017 simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- Accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- In default of payment all the fines, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. In default of payment of fine, the default sentences shall run consecutively.” 3. Order of conviction and sentence was questioned before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.84/2015. 4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after considering the oral and documentary on record in a cumulative manner, re-appreciated the same and dismissed the appeal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5910 CRL.RP No. 100324 of 2017 5. Being further aggrieved by same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 6. Accused has been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 18(C), 22(1) (cca) and Section 18(A), 27(b)(ii), 22(3) and 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short). Noting that she was running a drug shop without licence. After due trial, she has been convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. 7. Even at the time of recording the accused statement, accused failed to produce the licence to run the drugs and cosmetics stores which was being run in the name in style ‘Renuka Clinic’ situated at F-S4/336, plot No.330, 6th cross, Nagendranamatti, Haveri. 8. She was also involved in practicing allopathic system and selling allopathic drugs. Dr. P.R. Havanur is examined before the Court as PW-2, who has conducted the raid and three more witnesses as PW-1, PW-3 and PW- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5910 CRL.RP No. 100324 of 2017 4 who have all supported the case of the prosecution and drawing of panchanama at the spot at Ex.P-5 stands established. Ex.P-8 is the Life Membership Certificate and Ex.P-7 is the Registration Certificate. Seized drugs were detailed out in Ex.P-6. Permission letter obtained from the JMFC, Haveri for conducting the raid is marked at Ex.P-11 and letter addressed to the Drugs Controller, Bengaluru is marked at Ex.P-12. 9. All these aspects of the matter has been taken note of by the learned Trial Magistrate while convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentencing the accused as referred to supra. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the very same material evidence on record, has confirmed the order of conviction and sentence by not only accepting the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Magistrate, but also supplementing the additional reasons for sustaining the order of conviction. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5910 CRL.RP No. 100324 of 2017 11. Relevant portion of the order of the said judgment is in paragraph 16, which is culled out hereunder for ready reference. “16) On perusal of this private complaint, which is marked at Ex.P.1 wherein the complainant has deposed before the trial Court and his evidence is treated for the purpose of criminal case registered against accused before the trial Court. The trial Court has exempted examination of PW.1 in respect of sworn statement wherein the complainant- PW.1 being public servant has submitted his private complaint as per Ex.P.1, before the trial Court on 28.4.2009 and trial Court has acted upon said complaint by taking cognizance and issued summons to the accused. It is the specific case of the prosecution/complainant that the accused/appellant herein had stocked allopathic drugs for supply in her clinic runing at Nagendranamatti in the premise belongs to PW.4's father, without any valid licence as required under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and it is admitted fact that the appellant is not having any registration certificate in running clinic in the name and style of Renuka Clinic situated in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5910 CRL.RP No. 100324 of 2017 the premises belongs to father of PW.4. The complainant has initiated proceedings and conducted raid on 6.7.2006 and seized the stocks of drugs from the possession of appellant on 6.7.2006 by drawing mahazar and Ex.P.7 and P.8 produced by the appellant are not authenticated documents to practice in allopathic medicine by the appellant particularly in allopathic medicines, wherein she has not produced any documents to show that she is registered medical practitioner having obtained registration from Karnataka Medical Council or Indian Medical Association and hence the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and considered the documentary evidence placed by the complainant as per Ex.P.1 to P.23 and trial Court which has got perfect jurisdiction to try and decide the criminal case registered against accused, as per the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, wherein, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary available on record before it and trial Court by proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence held that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and proved charges against appellant/accused and hence the trial Court - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5910 CRL.RP No. 100324 of 2017 finding one arrived in the judgment rendered in C.C.No.222/2009 dtd.20.8.2015 is perfectly legal and valid and appellant has not made out any grounds to interfere in the trial Court judgment and order of conviction and even trial Court has noted in the judgment that this case facts and circumstances cannot be applied with the provisions of Sec.3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, since the offence committed by the appellant/accused herein against public wherein accused/appellant is practicing in allopathic medicines without any valid authentication or having valid registration and she has no requisite qualification and also valid certificates to practice in allopathic medicines and hence the trial Court has made note of these aspects of the matter in the impugned judgment and particularly has given its reasonings in point No.4 why the trial Court has not applied the provisions of Probation of Offenders for releasing the appellant on P.O. Act by applying Sec.3 and 4 and hence viewed from any angle the trial Court has dealt the matter judiciously by applying its judicious mind to the facts of the case and also rightly and properly assessed the evidence on record and as such the conviction recorded by the trial Court - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5910 CRL.RP No. 100324 of 2017 legally sustainable in the law and as such all the contentions raised by the appellant in this criminal appeal are not sustainable in law and as such I reject the contentions of appellant in this appeal and on the contrary prosecution has established its case as averred in the complaint Ex.P.1, against appellant herein and as such the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court do not warrant any interference by this appellate Court and hence the impugned order of conviction deserves to be upheld wherein the trial Court has imposed reasonable punishment on the appellant in the impugned judgment and hence in all respect the trial Court judgment and order of conviction is legally sustainable in law and this criminal appeal preferred by the appellant is devoid of any merits and there is no need to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction passed, by the trial Court against the appellant and hence I hold that this appeal preferred by the appellant is devoid of any merits and as such I hold that appellant failed to prove point No.2 raised in this appeal against prosecution and accordingly point No.2 is answered in the negative against appellant.” - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5910 CRL.RP No. 100324 of 2017 12. Taking note of the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court is unable to accept the arguments on behalf of the revision petitioner that she is not guilty of the offences alleged against her. 13. Hence, the order of conviction recorded by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference in this revision petition. 14. At this juncture, Sri Peerjade contended that as accused is now is aged 74 years leniency may be shown by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 15. An affidavit is also filed in that regard by counsel for revision petitioner, which reads as under: “I. Padmavati Padmappa Rotti, Age: 74 Years, Occ. Nagendranamatti, Haveri, today at Dharwad do hereby solemnly state on oath and affirm as under: 1. That, I am petitioner in this case, I have been convicted by the two courts below and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5910 CRL.RP No. 100324 of 2017 2. I am aged 74 years, I am alone in my family other family members do not reside with me. 3. I am suffering from blood pressure, sugar and other old aged problems. I am not in a position to walk, sit etc., on my own. I have to be accompanied by some others for my living. 4. My family is poor, we do not have any source of income. 5. During the pendency of this case I have suffered physically and mentally, I have underground torture and suffering. I most respectfully pray for leniency, in the interest of justice. Hence this affidavit.” 16. Per contra, Sri Praveen Devareddiyavara contented that there is a minimum punishment of three years with minimum fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, no lenience can be shown. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5910 CRL.RP No. 100324 of 2017 17. However, taking note of the power vested in this Court under the proviso of Section 27 of the Act as a special case, which is the age of the revision petitioner being 74 years and revision petitioner being the lady, this Court is of the considered opinion that enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- payable on or before 20th of May, 2025, the sentence needs to be modified by directing the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a day, which would meet the ends of justice. 18. Accordingly, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 18(C), 22(1) (cca) and Section 18(A), 27(b)(ii), 22(3) and 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, sentence ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified as under: - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5910 CRL.RP No. 100324 of 2017 Revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court for the proved offences by directing the revision petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- in addition to the fine amount already imposed by the Trial Court on or before 20th May, 2025. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would result in automatic restoration of the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order to pass modified conviction order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31