APVS0000473520151S.C.M.U. No.130 of 2016, II ADSJ Court, Visakhapatnam,
Date: 15.05.2026.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
[Erstwhile FIRST ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE],
VISAKHAPATNAM.
Present: Ms. C.K.Gayathri Devi, II Additional District and Sessions Judge [Erstwhile First Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge], Visakhapatnam.
Friday, this the Fifteenth [15th] day of May, 2026.
SESSIONS CASE M.U. No.130 of 2016
P.R.C. No.12 of 2015 on the file of the Learned Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate at Narsipatnam, based on the Complaint filed under Section 32 of
the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, for Violation of Sections 18 (c), 18 (A) and 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Rules made thereunder, punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii), 28 and 22(3) of the said Act.
Name of the Complainant : The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Drugs Inspector,
Narsipatnam.
Name of the Accused:Smt. Yelleti Satyavathi @ Satyavathi
Doctor, age 49 years, W/o.
Y.V.V.N.Narsimhamurthy, M/s. Gollaprolu
Children’s Clinic, D.No.1-66, Asst.
No.283, 1stWard, Pedaboddepalli,
Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam
District.
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 20162II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
Date, time and Place of Offence: 22.04.2014, at M/s. Gollaprolu Children’s
Clinic, D.No.1-66, Asst. No.283, 1st Ward,
Pedaboddepalli, Narsipatnam Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District.
Charges:Under Sections 27(b) (ii) R/w Section 18(c), 28 R/w. 18-A & 22(3) R/w 22 (i) (cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
[Considered as Section 18 [c]
R/w. 27[b][ii], Section 18-A R/w. 28 and Section 22 [1] [cca] R/w. 22 [3] of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, since the former Sections 18[c], 18-A and 22 [1] [cca] are the
Contraventions, and the latter
Sections 27[b][ii], 28 and 22 [3] prescribe the Punishments for the same, and the Provision of Offence should be read with the Penal
Provision, and not vice versa.]
Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty.
Finding of the Court :Guilty.
Sentence or Order :In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the Offence under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 20163II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the said Act, Section 18-A of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, punishable under Section 28 of the said Act, and Section 22(1) (cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act punishable under Section 22(3) of the said Act. Hence, the Accused is convicted for the said Offences under
Section 235[2] of Cr.P.C.
Upon hearing the Accused on the question of Sentence, and the
Submissions made by her, and by recording the reasons, the Accused is sentencedtoundergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of Six Months, and to pay a Fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One month, for the
Offence under Section 18 (c) of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 27 (b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The Accused is further sentenced to pay a Fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One month, for the Offence under Section 18-A of the Drugs and
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 20164II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under
Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act, 1940.
The Accused is further sentenced to pay a Fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One month, for the Offence under Section 22(i)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 22(3) of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The total Fine payable by the
Accused is Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- +
Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/-).
M.O.No.1 shall be destroyed after the expiry of the Appeal time. The
Accused is informed as to her Right of
Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the Judgment of this Court, and that she is entitled for Legal Aid from the
Legal Services Institution for filing
Appeal, and that she is also entitled for a free Copy of the Judgment.
Prosecution conducted by : Sri N.S. Chandra Sekhar,Additional
Public Prosecutor of this Court, for the
State.
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 20165II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
Accused was defended by : Sri P.A.K. Kishore, Advocate for the
Accused.
*****
This Sessions Case, coming on 16.04.2026, before me, for
Arguments, in the presence of Sri N.S. Chandra Sekhar, Additional Public
Prosecutor, for the Prosecution; and Sri P.A.K. Kishore, Advocate for the
Accused; and upon hearing both sides, and upon perusing the entire material available on record, and upon having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following
J U D G M E N T
1.The Drugs Inspector, Narsipatnam has filed this Complaint, against the Accused, under Section 32 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, for
Violation of the Provisions under Sections 18 (c), 18 (A) and 22(1)(cca) of the
Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Rules made thereunder, duly punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii), 28 and 22(3) of the said Act.
2.The Case of the Complainant, as per the averments in the
Complaint, in brief, is as follows:-
The Complainant in this Case, namely, Kum. K.Indira Bharathi [LW.7], was appointed as the Drugs Inspector, under Sec.21 of the Drugs &
Cosmetics Act, 1940, vide G.O.Ms.No.71, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (L-2) Department, dated 25.05.2013, and vide Gazette Notification No.364,
dated 30.05.2013, for having Jurisdiction over the entire State of Andhra
Pradesh. She was posted to Narsipatnam, vide Proceedings of
Re.No.11493/E1/1977, dated 09.04.2013, of the Office of the Director General,
Drugs & Copy rights, Drugs Control Administration, Hyderabad. She is authorized to launch the Prosecution as per Section 32 of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940.
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 20166II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
On 22.04.2014, on credible information, Kum. K.Indira Bharathi, the Drugs Inspector, Narsipatnam (LW.7), the Drugs Inspector, Gajuwaka, namely, Smt. V.Abhipriya (LW.5) and the Drugs Inspector, Vigilance,
Visakhapatnam, namely, Kum. R.Lalitha (LW.6), along with two Mediators, namely, Sri M.N.V.ChittiNaidu (LW.1) and Smt. Madesetti Dhana Varalakshmi
Narayanamma (LW.2) raided the Premises of Smt. Yellati Satyavathi, situated at D.No.1-66, Asst.No.283, Gollaprolu Children's Clinic, 1stWard,
Pedaboddepalli, Narsipatnam (M), Visakhapatnam Dstrict. They had found that the Accused had stocked 37 items of Drugs (11 Items of Sales Packs and 26
Items of Drugs marked as "Physician Sample, Not to be sold") in the the said
Premises for Sale, without any Drug Licence. The Accused also failed to disclose the source of supply of the said 37 Items of Drugs. Then, Kum. Indira
Bharathi, Drugs Inspector, Narsipatnam (LW.7) has taken 2 varieties of Drug
Samples for Analysis, duly following the Procedure laid down as per Sec.23 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. The remaining Stock were listed in Form-16,
dated 22.04.2014, and was seized under the cover of Mediators Report in the
presence of the Accused. The Copy of Form-16 and Copy of Mediators Report were acknowledged by the Accused, and the same were handed over to her.
On the same day, as per the provisions of Sec.18-A and See.
22(1)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Kum. K.Indira Bharathi,
Drugs Inspector, Narsipatnam [LW.7] served a Notice to the Accused, vide
Office Rc.No.SZ-1/DI/KIB/NRPM/VSP/2014, dated 22.04.2014, with a request to disclose the name, address and other particulars of person, from whom she acquired the said seized drugs, under Sec.18-A, and to furnish the Certified
Copies of Purchase Invoices of seized Drugs, Distribution Particulars and Tax
Receipt of the said Building. The Accused gave Reply Letter, dated Nil, wherein she did not disclose the source of supply of the said seized drugs, and did notfurnished any Certified Copies of Purchase Bills of the seized Drugs.
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 20167II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
She had furnished the attested Xerox Copy of Tax Receipt of the said Building, bearing Asst. No.283.
On the same day, as per Sec.23(5)(b) of the Drugs & Cosmetics
Act, 1940, Kum. K.Indira Bharathi, Drugs Inspector, Narsipatnam [LW.7] had intimated the above said Seizure to the Hon’ble Court of the Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Narsipatnam, and sought for passing of Orders for
safe Custody of the seized Property, vide the Office Rc.No.SZ-1/DI/KIB/NRPM/
VSP/2014, dated 22.04.2014. The Court has directed her to produce the seized property at the time of Trial, vide D.D.R.No.355, dated 23.04.2014.
On 23.04.2014, Kum. K.Indira Bharathi, Drugs Inspector,
Narsipatnam [LW.7] sent sealed portions of 2 varieties of Samples of Drugs to the Drugs Control Laboratory, Hyderabad, for Analysis, as per Sec.23 (4) (i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, vide S.No. of Memorandum 16/S/KIB/DI/
NRPM/2014, S.No. of Memorandum 17/S/KIB/DI/ NRPM/ 2014, each dated 22.04.2014. On the same day, she had informed the said seizure to the
Director General, Drugs & Copy Rights, Drugs Control Administration,
Hyderabad, vide Office Letter in Rc.No.SZ-1/DI/KIB/NRPM/VSP/2014, dated 22.04.2014.
On 24.05.2014, Kum. K.Indira Bharathi, Drugs Inspector,
Narsipatnam [LW.7] addressed a Letter to the Municipal Commissioner,
Narsipatnam (V&M), Visakhapatnam District, vide Office Letter in Rc.No.SZI/
DIV/KIB/NRPM/VSP/2014, dated 24.05.2014, with a request to furnish
Ownership particulars of the Building, bearing D.No.1-66, with Asst. No.283 of
Pedaboddepalli (V), Narsipatnam (M), Visakhapatnam (Dist). On 06.06.2014, she received a Reply Letter in ROC.No.640/2014-A1, dated 31.05.2014, of Sri
P.Simhachalam, Commissioner, Narsipatnam Municipality, Narsipatnam [LW.3], who certified that the Building, bearing D.No.1-66 and Asst. No.283
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 20168II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
[Old] for 2011-2012 and 9732 [New] for 2013–2014, belongs to Sri.
Bheemavarapu Chinnayya [LW.4].
On 07.06.2014, Kum. K.Indira Bharathi, Drugs Inspector,
Narsipatnam [LW.7] served a Notice under Sec.18-A of the Drugs & Cosmetics
Act, 1940 to the said Sri. Bheemavarapu Chinnayya [LW.4], requesting him to disclose the name, address and other particulars of Person, from whom they have acquired the said Drugs, and to furnish information on the tenancy of the building to Yellati Satyavathi [Accused], and to produce the Attested Copy of the Rental Agreement, and of the House Tax Receipt of the said Building, under Sections 22(1)(cca) and 22(1)(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
On 07.06.2014, Kum. K.Indira Bharathi, Drugs Inspector,
Narsipatnam [LW.7] received a reply from Sri Bheemavarapu Chinnayya [LW.4], and he informed that the seized drugs do not belong to him. He also stated that he let the said building to the Accused, for Residential purpose only, at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month. On 01.12.2014, she had received
Analytical Reports of the Samples taken for Analysis from the Accused, vide
Report No.1676/DCL/2014, dated 27.06.2014, and Report No.2646/DCL/2014,
dated 25.11.2014, and the Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory,
Hyderabad, had declared the said Samples as ‘Standard Quality’.
As provided under Section 25 (2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Copy of the Analytical Report of two Samples was furnished to the
Accused, and she was requested to disclose the Name, Address and other particulars of the Person, from whom she had acquired the said Drugs, as per
Sec.18-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and to furnish the Attested
Copies of Purchase Bills, Distribution particulars of the said Drugs, as per the provision of Sec. 22(1)(eca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. On 09.12.2014, she received a Reply Letter, dated Nil, from the Accused. But, she did not disclose the source of supply of the said seized Drugs. She did not
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 20169II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
furnish any Certified copies of Purchase Bills and distribution particulars of the seized Drugs.
It is evident that the Accused, namely, Smt. Yellati Satyavathi alias
Dr. Satyavathi was found to have stocked huge quantities of Drugs for sale without Valid Drug License, and thereby, she contravened Sec.18(c) of the
Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable U/s. 27(b)(ii) of the same Act. She also failed to disclose the source of supply of the Drugs seized from her possession, and thereby contravened Sec.18-A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 28 of the same Act. She also failed to furnish the Certified Copies of Purchase Invoices and Distribution particulars of the drugs seized, from her possession, and thereby, she had contravened
Sec.22(i)(cca) punishable under Sec.22(3) the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940,
Therefore, she has filed this Complaint, seeking to take the
Complaint on file, and to committed to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, as per the provision of Section 32 (2) of the Drugs & Cosmetics (Amendment) Act, 2008, and to punish the Accused according to Law, in the interest of justice.
3. The Case was taken on file against the Accused, for the Offences under Sections 27 (b) (ii), 28 and 22 [3] of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, by the Committal Court, i.e., the then Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Narsipatnam, and was registered as P.R.C. No.12 of 2015.
4. After appearance of the Accused, the then Presiding Officer of the
Committal Court has furnished Copies to the Accused under Section 207 of
Cr.P.C.
5. After due hearing, the Committal Court has committed the above said P.R.C. No.12 of 2015, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of the
Learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said Case was registered as S.C.M.U.No.130 of 2016, and was made over to this Court, for
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201610II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
disposal in accordance with the Law, by the Learned Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Visakhapatnam.
6. After appearance of the Accused, and after hearing both sides, the
Charge, under Sections 27(b) (ii) R/w. 18 (c), Sections 28 R/w. 18-A, and
Sections 22[3] R/w. 22 [i] [cca] of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, was framed against the Accused, and the same were read over and explained to
Accused in Telugu, by the then Presiding Officer of this Court, and the Accused had pleaded not guilty, and claimed for Trial. Hence, the Case was posted for
Trial.
7.On behalf of the Prosecution, PW.1 to 4 are examined, and
Exs.P1 to P24 and M.O.No.1 are marked. The Evidence of Smt. Madesetti
Dhana Varalakshmi Narayanamma, Health Supervisor, T.B.Clinic, Narsipatnam [LW.2], Sri P.Simhachalam, Commissioner, Narsipatnam Municipality [LW.3] and Kum. R.Lalitha, Drugs Inspector, Vigilance, Visakhaptatnam [LW.6] was given up by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Thus, the Prosecution side Evidence was closed.
8. During the Examination of the Accused, under Section 313,
Cr.P.C., regarding the entire incriminating material appearing against her in the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses and Documents, the Accused had denied the same. The Accused has further submitted that there is no Defence
Evidence on his behalf. Hence, the Defence side evidence is closed.
9.Heard both sides. Perused the Written Arguments filed on behalf of the Prosecution.
10. While perusing the record, this Court found that Sections 18[c], 18-A and 22 [1] [cca] of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act deal with the
Contraventions therein, and the Penal Provisions are provided under Sections
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201611II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
27 [b][ii], 28 and 22[3] of the said Act. Generally, in the Charge, the Offence should come first, and then, the Penal Provision should come. As such, this
Court is inclined to frame the Point for Consideration as for ‘Section 18[c] R/w.
22[b][ii], Section 18-A R/w. 28 and Section 22 [1] [cca] R/w. 22[3] of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,’, instead of ‘Sections 27(b) (ii) R/w. 18 (c), Section 28 R/w. 18-A and Section 22[3] R/w. 22 [1] [cca] of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act, 1940 ’, as framed in the Charge.
11. The Point for consideration is whether the Prosecution is able
to establish the guilt of the Accused for the Offences under Section 18[c]
R/w. 22[b][ii], Section 18-A R/w. 28 and Section 22 [1] [cca] R/w. 22[3] of
the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,’ of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940, beyond all reasonable doubt?
12. Point:- (1)To prove its Case, the Prosecution had examined the
Mediator No.1, namely, Sri M.N.V. Chitti Naidu [LW.1] as PW.1, the Owner of the Scene of Building, namely, Sri Bheemavarapu Chinnayya [LW.4] as PW.2, and the then Drugs Inspector, Gajuwaka, namely, Smt. V.Abhipriaya [LW.5] as
PW.3, and the Defacto Complainant, i.e., the Drugs Inspector, Narsipatnam, namely, Smt. K.Indira Bharathi [PW.4], and got Exs.P1 to P24 and M.O.No.1 marked through them. The evidence of the remaining Witnesses was given up, by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor of this Court.
(2)During the Arguments, the Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has argued, both orally and in the Written Arguments, that the
Case of the Prosecution is proved from the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, coupled with Exs.P1 to P24 and M.O.No.1; and that PW.4 had complied all the requisite Provisions for conducting the proper Search; and that by way of her
Reply under Exs.P10 and P11, the Accused had admitted the seizure of Drugs
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201612II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
from her possession; and that when the Copy of the List of Items seized is given to the occupant of the Premises, Provision under Section 100 of Cr.P.C.
is complied, as it is a Compliance of Section 103 of Cr.P.C.; and that the Drugs
Inspectors i.e. PW.3 and PW.4 cannot be treated as Partisan Witnesses, as they are discharging their duties; and that their evidence cannot be ignored when it is consistent; and that the Defence taken by the Accused during the course of Cross Examination of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4 is entirely different from the admission given by her under Exs.P10 and P11; and that stocking of the
Drugs, without any Drugs License, itself is an Offence; and that the contention of the Accused, that the Drugs were stored for the use of her Son, is not at all proved, as no proof is filed to show that he is a Doctor authorized to stock
Medicines; and that M.O.No.1 clearly shows that Seven Carton Boxes of
Drugs were seized, which were of huge quantity, leaving no doubt that they were stocked for Sale.
(3)The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further argued that the Accused had failed to furnish the details of the Persons, from whom she had purchased Drugs, and to whom she had supplied and sold the same; and that in Exs.P10 and P11, the Accused had stated that she does not remember the details of the Persons from whom she has purchased the
Drugs; and that it is clear that the Accused had stocked Drugs, without any
Drugs Licence; and that the Accused had failed to comply the Notices issued by PW.4, by furnishing the details of the Persons, from whom he had purchased the Drugs; and that the Accused also failed to produce the Records and Registers, pertaining to the purchase and distribution of the Drugs.
(4)The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further argued that the entire evidence adduced by the Prosecution clearly establishes that the Accused had stocked 37 varieties of Drugs for Sale in an
Unlicenced Premises, contravening Section 18(c) punishable under Section
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201613II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act; and that by failing to disclose the names and addresses of the persons and firms, from whom she had acquired the said Drugs, the Accused had contravened the Provisions under Section 18-A punishable under Section 28 of the said Act; and that the Accused had failed to produce the Records and Registers relating to purchase and distribution of the seized Drugs, and thereby, she had contravened the
Provisions of Section 22(1) (cca) punishable under Section 22(3) of the said
Act, and therefore, the Case of the Prosecution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and hence, the Accused is liable for Conviction.
(5)In this regard, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following Decisions:
(1) 1972 Cri.LJ 1546, in the Case of the Public Prosecutor
Vs. Mahaveer Prasad and Ors., wherein it was held that “the search or seizure made by a Drugs Inspector is equated to the search and seizure made under the authority of a warrant issued under Section 98 of Cr.P.C., and that since under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, a search or seizure by a Drugs
Inspector is equated to a search and seizure under the authority of a warrant, it is not necessary for a Drugs Inspector to record his reasons, for making a search.” (2) Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh, dated 17.05.2012, given in Criminal Revision
No.1471 of 2012, in the Case of Dr. Hemraj Vs. State of Haryana through
District Drugs Inspector, Fatehabad, wherein it was held that “the evidence of the Official Witness cannot be ignored, and it was consistent, and there is no ground to interfere in the Judgment.” (3) AIR 1974 Supreme Court 469 in the Case of Sk. Amir Vs.
the State of Maharashtra, wherein it was held that “Section 18(a) of the Act
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201614II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
lays down an injunction that no person shall 'stock' for sale a drug of certain description, Section 18(c) says that no person shall 'stock for sale a drug except in accordance with the conditions of a Licence issued for such purpose and Section 27(a), which prescribes a penalty, for a person who stocks for sale a misbranded drug or a drug in respect of which no valid licence is held, do not use the word 'stock' in any technical sense. The plain meaning of the word 'stock' in these provisions of the Act is 'to keep' and the injunction of the law means no more than this that no person shall keep for sale a misbranded drug or a drug in respect of which a valid licence is not held. It is not necessary that the drug should be stored' in a place, in order that it can be said to have been stocked' for sale. If anyone keeps or carries a drug on his person in contravention of the terms of the Act, and it is proved that the drug is kept or carried for sale, the act must fall within the mischief of the law under consideration.” (4) AIR 1974 Supreme Court 517 in the Case of Swantraj &
Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was held that “Every place where storage for sale is made must be licensed. That is the plain meaning of
Sec. 18 (c) in fulfillment of the clear purpose, the sensitive defence of the sick.” (5) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 303 in the Case of Surinder
Kumar Vs the State of Punjab, wherein it was held that “ it is evident from the
Report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.P-10, that the sample was received with seals intact, and that the seals on the sample, tallied with the sample seals. In that view of the matter, the chain of evidence was complete, and that the mere fact that the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of official witnesses, does not mean that same should not be believed.” (6) AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1606 in the Case of State of
Orissa Vs. Janmejoy Dinda, wherein it was held that “It is obvious that for application of the Section, the person concerned shall not be a manufacturer
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201615II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
of drug or his agent. In other words, the person to whom Section 18A applies is anyone other than a manufacturer or his agent for distribution thereof. The raison d'etre of it is that, if he is the manufacturer or his agent, he cannot disclose the name of the person from whom he acquired the drug, because he himself is its manufacturer. To expect the other way is to expect the impossible. Hence, there is no question of requiring him to disclose the identity of the person, from whom he acquired the drug. Exclusion of Manufacturer and his Agent from the purview of Section 18A is, therefore, on understandable premise.” (6)The Learned Counsel for the Accused had argued that it is alleged by the Complainant that when PW.4 had conducted raid on the premises, the Accused was found treating Patients, but none of the said patients were examined as Witnesses by PW.4; and that Physician Samples and Drugs were alleged to have been found in the premises without Licence; and that the evidence of PW.1 and PWs.3 and 4 is consistent, with regard to place, where the Drugs were seized; and that though the Accused is said to be practicing as a Doctor without Licence, no proof is filed to prove the same, and that in the Chief Examination, PW.1 did not depose that the Panchanama was prepared by him, and that in the Cross Examination, he had deposed that he had scribed the Panchanama to the instructions of PW.4; and that the evidence of PW.1 contradicts the evidence of PWs.3 and 4, regarding the mode of securing the presence of other Mediator [LW.2]; and that PW.4 did not enquire the Accused, as to whether she is having any Licence or not, either to store the Drugs or to treat Patients; and that PW.3 and PW.4 did not depose the language, in which the Accused had signed; and that in the Documents relied upon by the Prosecution, the Accused is shown to have signed in Telugu
Language; and that the said Signatures were not the signatures of the
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201616II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
Accused, as she is in the habit of signing in English, as seen from the other
Documents filed by PW.4, as well as from the Proceedings of this Case.
(7)The Learned Counsel for the Accused that it is the specific
Defence of the Accused that the Physician Samples and Medicines, belonging to her Son, who is the Doctor; and that bonafides of the Samples were not verified, by examining the Son of the Accused, even though he is a Doctor, who is entitled to store Medicines; and that no proof is filed to show that the
Accused is running a Shop in the Premises, as alleged by the Prosecution; and that the evidence of PW.2 establishes that the Accused is a tenant in the premises, and it does not establish the possession of Drugs from the Accused; and that the evidence of PW.3 shows that the material Documents pertaining to her appointment, Log Book etc., were not filed; and that in Exs.P23 and
P24, the Signature of the Accused is shown to be in English, while in Exs.P4 to
P12, it is in Telugu; and that as a capacity of PW.3, as the Drugs Inspector of
Gajuwaka, is not established, her evidence cannot be believed; and that the evidence of PW.4 clearly shows that the Statement of the Accused was not filed before the Court, and that the Documents in Exs.P21 and P22, which are the Reports of the Analyst, show that the alleged drugs are of standard quality; and that the Proceedings under Section 100 of Cr.P.C are not complied; and that the Documents, wherein the signatures are in Telugu, were not signed by the Accused, as she is in the habit of signing in English language alone; and that the Search Proceedings are not initiated, and they are not valid; and that the corrections in Ex.P27 has to be seen.
(8)The Learned Counsel for the Accused has further argued that the alleged Name Board and its description was not at all mentioned in the
Panchanama; and that even the source of information was not proved, and that the Provisions under Section 23 of the Act are not at all complied by PW.3 and PW.4; and that as the son of the Accused is a Doctor, she had stocked the
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201617II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
Physician Samples; and that the storage is not for sale; and that the replies of the Accused have to be seen; and that the Decisions relied upon by the
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor are not at all applicable to the present case; and that the evidence of PW.1, who alone is an independent Witness, shows the inconsistencies with the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4, and that the evidence of PW.2 shows that the Accused did not store any Drugs therein, and that the Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and hence, the Accused is entitled for Acquittal.
(9)It is clear that the Accused was alleged to have committed 3 different Offences. The First Offence is Stocking of Drugs for Sale, without a valid Drugs Licence, contravened Provisions of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the said Act. The
Second Offence is that the Accused failed to disclose the source of supply of the Drugs seized from her possession, and contravened Section 18-A of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, punishable under Section 28 of the said Act. The
Third Offence is that the Accused had failed to furnish the Certified Copies of the Purchase Invoices and Distribution Particulars of the seized Drugs from her possession, and she had contravened Section 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, punishable under Section 22(3) of the said Act.
(10)To establish all the above said Offences, the first and foremost thing that is to be established by the Prosecution is that the Accused does not have any Drugs Licence, and that she had stocked huge quantities of
Drugs for Sale. When these two aspects are established, then, the
Prosecution has to establish that the Accused had failed to disclose the source of supply of the said Drugs, as well as her failure to furnish Copies of the
Purchase Invoices and Distribution Particulars. So, this Court is inclined to look into whether the Prosecution is able to establish the first two aspects, i.e., whether the Accused does not have any Drugs Licence, and whether she has
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201618II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
stocked huge quantities of Drugs for Sale. It is clear that the seizure of the
Drugs from the Possession of the Accused, is not disputed.
(11)It is relevant to mention here that as per the Case of
Prosecution, the Drugs were allegedly seized from M/s. Gollaprolu Children’s
Clinic, situated at D.No.1-66, with Assessment No.283, 1stWard,
Pedaboddepalli, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. In the
Complaint, as well as the entire Record produced by the Complainant, right from Form No.16, Form No.17, Panchanama and other connected Documents, the Accused herein was described as ‘Smt. Yelleti Satyavathi @ Satyavathi
Doctor’ with the above said Address. Nowhere, the Accused had denied the
Alias Name furnished by the Complainant as ‘Satyavathi Doctor’. The Accused also did not deny that M/s. Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic was run in the Premises mentioned in the Complaint, as well as in the Records submitted by PW.4.
There is no Cross Examination of PWs.1, 3 and 4, either with respect to the residence of the Accused in the Premises, or her alias name. It was only elicited from PW.4 that she did not mention in the Records, whether there was a Board at the Premises or not. But, with respect to other aspects, the evidence of PW.4 had remained consistent.
(12)It is clear from the evidence of PW.2, who is said to be the
Owner of the Premises, that he had clearly deposed that the Accused was a tenant of his house for a period of 3 years from 2016, and that he had given a portion of his house to the Accused for rent for residence purpose only, and she had resided in the house, along with Children; and that the Drugs
Inspector, Narsipatnam had issued a Letter to him, asking to furnish information, regarding the source of supply of the Drugs found in the house, and regarding the tenancy of the Accused, and copies of the rental agreement and house tax receipts; and that as he is an illiterate, he got a Reply, written by a known person, that he is not concerned with the seized drugs, and that he
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201619II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
gave the house for rent of Rs.2,000/- per month, and not for storing medicines, and running a Clinic. Through him, the Letter submitted by him to the Drugs
Inspector, Narsipatnam, and a Copy of the House Tax Receipt, were together marked as Ex.P1. PW.2 had admitted that the Accused is a Housewife, and she did not run any Clinic in his house, and that her elder son is a Doctor, and he used to treat the neighbours and others, after completing his Studies.
(13)The evidence adduced by PW.2 in the Cross-examination, regarding the Accused, in not selling or storing any Medicines in his house, does not help the Defence, since the location of the house in the inspected premises, is not denied and disputed by the Accused, as stated earlier. Even if otherwise is considered, the evidence of PW.2 establishes that the Accused resided as a tenant in the disputed Premises at the time of the incident.
(14)PW.1 is the Village Revenue Officer, who is said to have accompanied the Drugs Inspectors to the Scene of Offence, and he had clearly deposed in Chief that on 22.04.2014, at about 11.00 A.M., three Drug
Inspectors came to the Tahsildar’s Office, Narsipatnam, and secured him, and that they went to the Area Hospital, Narsipatnam, where Medisetti Dhana Vara
Lakshmi (LW.2) was secured, and then, they went to Gollaprolu Children
Clinic, Peddaboddepalli, and reached there at 11.30 A.M., and Satyavathi, who is the Accused, was residing in the Hospital Building itself; and that they entered the Gollaprolu Children Clinic; and that the Drugs Inspectors called the
Accused, and entered the Kitchen, where the Drugs were found; and that when they questioned her about the Licence, she replied in negative, and that all the Drugs were seized by the Drugs Inspectors. These aspects were deposed by PW.1, during the evidence recorded on 10.10.2023.
(15)Subsequently, on 26.02.2024, PW.1 had again deposed about their going to Gollaprolu Children Clinic on 22.04.2014, at about 11.00
A.M., and that the Accused is practicing as a Doctor, without any Medical
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201620II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
qualification or licence for practicing as a Doctor; and that in the two rooms of the house, the Accused was practicing as a Doctor, and in the third room, she was residing; and that the Drug Inspectors seized 37 varieties of drugs, which were in seven Cardboard boxes, and were sealed, and two Samples were drawn; and that the Accused had signed in the Documents, apart from the 3
Drugs Inspectors, himself and Dhana Varalakshmi.
(16)The evidence of PW.1 in Chief clearly shows that three
Drugs Inspectors and Mediators had proceeded to the Gollaprolu Children
Clinic, and that the Accused was practicing as a Doctor, without any Medical qualification or licence. In his Cross Examination, PW.1 had admitted that he came to know that the Accused is a Doctor, only upon the information given by the Drugs Inspectors, and that he did not see any Patients; and that he knows that the Son of the Accused is a Doctor. Inspite of eliciting such aspects from
PW.1, the Accused did not elicit from PW.1, as to the presence of the Board of
Clinic. PW.1 had only stated that he did not see any Board at the Scene of
Offence House, and that he did not make any enquiry. Generally, Mediators will not make any enquiries.
(17)It was only suggested to PW.1 that there is a rivalry between the Son of the Accused and PW.4, because of which, a raid was conducted in the absence of the Son of the Accused, and that taking advantage of the Physician Samples given by the Medical Representatives, and the Sales Packs purchased for personal use, a false case is foisted against the Accused, by preparing all the Records at the Office of the Drugs
Inspector. PW.1 had denied the said suggestion in clear terms.
(18)PW.3, who is the then Drugs Inspector, who worked at
Gajuwaka at the time of the incident, had assisted the Drugs Inspector,
Narsipatnam, namely, Smt. K.Indira Bharathi [PW.4]. So, the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 have to be read together. A perusal of the Evidence of PW.3 and
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201621II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
PW.4 clearly shows that both of them and the Drugs Inspector, Vigilance of
Visakhapatnam, namely, R.Lalitha [LW.6] secured the presence of PW.1 and
Medisetty Dhana Vara Lakshmi Narayanamma [LW.2] as Mediators, and they proceeded to Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic situated at Peddaboddepalli,
Narsipatnam; and that PW.4 disclosed her identity to the Accused, and introduced herself and other Drugs Inspectors and Mediators to the Accused, and informed her the purpose of her visit, and with her permission, they entered the premises, and verified the same, and found the drugs stocked in the first room i.e., Clinic, and in the Kitchen Room, and that when PW.4 questioned about the said Medicines, the Accused stated that she does not remember about the purchase particulars, and she will submit the same later, and that when PW.4 enquired about the Drugs Licence, the Accused stated that she does not have any Drugs Licence, and that she used the medicines for giving to patients, and then, after informing the Accused that stocking and selling of the Drugs without licence is an offence, the Drugs were seized, by preparing Form No.16; and that Samples were collected, and the entire
Proceedings were drafted as Panchanama, and that all the Documents were signed by all the Three Drugs Inspectors, Mediators and the Accused.
(19)Both PW.3 and PW.4 had also deposed that out of 37 Drugs elicited in Form No.16, 11 Items were Salable Drugs, and 26 varieties were
Physician Samples, not for Sale; and that all the 37 varieties of Drugs were kept in seven Cardboard boxes, and signatures and seals were affixed, and thereafter, a Rough Sketch was also prepared.
(20)It is clear that the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4, with regard to their visiting the Place of Offence, and Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic being run in the Premises, is not at all discredited by the Accused. Not even a single suggestion was put forth to PWs.3 and 4, denying that M/s. Gollaprolu
Children’s Clinic is not at all run in the Premises of the Accused, and that the
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201622II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
Accused has no concern with the same. It was only suggested to them, that the Accused never stocked and sold any Medicines, and she never practiced as a Doctor, and she never sold any Physician Samples or Sales Pack. It was denied by both PWs.3 and 4 in clear terms.
(21)PW.4 had further deposed about her Communications with the Accused to find out the source of supply of the Drugs, and the Replies given by the Accused, and her failure to reply thereafter, and the seizure of the
Drugs in M.O.No.1. Through PW.4, Exs.P2 to P24 and M.O.No.1 were marked by the Prosecution. The admission elicited from PW.4, is that she did not mention the Name Board of the Clinic in the Rough Sketch in Ex.P8, and that in Panchanama in Ex.P5 also, she did not mention about the existence of the
Name Board of the Clinic of the Accused. But, that suggestion was not put forth to PW.3. It was also not suggested to PW.4 that as to how she had received information regarding the Gollaprolu Children Clinic, which is alleged to be run by the Accused, and as to why she did not mention the name of the
Clinic in the Record in Ex.P8, and in the Panchanama about the Name Board of the Clinic etc.
(22)It is clear that except the admission that the Name Board of the M/s. Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic was not mentioned in the Rough Sketch and Panchanama, nothing was elicited from PW.4, with respect to the existence of the said Gollaprolu Children Clinic in the Premises, where the
Accused is residing. As seen from the Cross Examination of PW.1 and PW.2, it was elicited that the Son of the Accused was a Doctor. But, it was not elicited from them that the Clinic, namely, M/s. Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic was run by the Son of the Accused.
(23)Generally, when the Clinic is run by a Doctor, duly qualified under the Indian Medical Council, then, his Clinic would have a Certificate, by way of Permission for running a Clinic. But, no such Permission was filed by
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201623II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
the Accused before this Court. There is absolutely no record to show that the
Son of the Accused was running, either M/s. Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic, or any other Clinic in the Premises of PW.2, where the Accused is admittedly residing. The evidence of PW.3 and PW.4, coupled with the evidence of PW.1, clearly establishes that the Drugs were found in the Premises of the Accused.
(24)It is relevant to look into Exs.P1 to P24 and M.O.No.1, which are relied upon by the Prosecution. Ex.P1, as stated earlier, is the Letter submitted by PW.2, regarding the Accused being a tenant of his house, and his having no concern with the Medicines found there.
(25)Ex.P2 is the Copy of the Gazette Notification, dated 30.05.2013, wherein the G.O., containing the Appointment of PW.4 and
R.Lalitha [LW.6] was published. The said G.O. shows that they were appointed as Drugs Inspectors for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh.
(26)Ex.P3 is the Copy of the G.O., issued by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh, dated 25.05.2013, with regard to the Notification pertaining to the Appointment of PW.4 and LW.6. It also contains the Proceedings of the
Director General, Drugs and Copy Rights, Drugs Control Administration,
Hyderabad, wherein the Posting Orders were issued, and PW.4 was posted as a Drugs Inspector, Narsipatnam [Sale], which is a newly created post, and
LW.6 was posted as a Drugs Inspector, Visakhapatnam [Vigilance], which is also newly created.
(27)At the time of Arguments, the Authority of PW.3 was disputed by the Learned Counsel for the Accused. Along with the above said
G.Os and Gazette Notification, a Copy of the Gazette Notification, dated 28.11.2011, was also filed along with the Complaint. It shows that PW.3 was appointed as a Drugs Inspector for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh.
Though the said Document is not marked, since the Gazette Notifications are
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201624II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
the Documents, for which this Court can take Judicial Notice, it can be said that PW.3 is a competent Drugs Inspector, and she can give evidence in the present Case, and that she has authority to accompany and assist the other
Drugs Inspector, and that Prior Permission of the Superiors is not required.
(28)Exs.P4 to P16, P18, and P20 are all Carbon Copies of the
Documents. The then Presiding Officer of this Court had observed at the time of recording of the evidence of PW.1 that the original Documents were not filed, and the then Drugs Inspector, who was present before the Court, was directed to file the original Documents. Thereafter, the Petition in
Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2024 was filed by the Prosecution, and the Documents were
called for from the Committal Court. But, the Committal Court did not send the
Documents, and after repeated Reminders issued by this Court, a Letter was received from the Presiding Officer of the Committal Court that the original
Documents could not be traced out. On that, the Petition in Crl.M.P.No.351 of 2025 was filed by the Prosecution, and Permission was accorded to exhibit the
Carbon Copies of the original Documents, as they are available on record, for being treated as Secondary Evidence in the matter, since the Original
Documents were not traced out. Thereafter, the Documents were marked through PW.4.
(29)Ex.P4 is the Carbon Copy of Form No.16. It pertains to
Receipt of stock of Drugs or Cosmetics etc., seized under Section 22(1) (c) or (cc) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It contains the Description of the 37 varieties of Drugs, and their quantity, Batch Number, Manufacturing Date,
Expiry Date, and the Manufacturer. It is specifically mentioned in Ex.P4 that, out of 37 Varieties, S.No.1 to 11 were said to be marked as ‘Sales Pack’, and
S.No.12 to 37 were marked as ‘Physician Samples, not to be sold’.
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201625II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
(30)Ex.P5 is the Carbon Copy of the Panchanama, dated 22.04.2014, with respect to the entire Proceedings of inspecting the Premises,
Seizure of the Drugs, etc., were mentioned.
(31)Ex.P6 is the Carbon Copy of the Form No.17, issued under
Rules 56 and 145-A, and it is said to be the Intimation to the Person, from whom the sample was taken. It contains the details of Samples taken at the premises. It also contains the Carbon Copy of Endorsement given by the
Accused, on its back side, with respect to drawing of samples, deviation of samples, offering amount of Rs.220/- by PW.4, and its refusal by the Accused.
Ex.P7 is the Original Form No.17-A under Rules 56-A and 145-AA. It is issued as a Receipt for Samples of Drugs and Cosmetics taken, where the fair price tendered by PW.4, was refused by the Accused.
(32)Ex.P8 is the Original Rough Sketch of the Scene of Offence.
Ex.P9 is the Carbon Copy of the Letter addressed by PW.4, to the Accused, on 22.04.2014, seeking disclosure of the names, address and other particulars from whom she had acquired the Drugs. Ex.P10 is the Original Reply given by the Accused to the said Letter in Ex.P9. Ex.P11 is the Original Statement of the
Accused, given before the PW.4. Ex.P12 is the Photostat Copy of the Tax
Receipt pertaining to the Premises. A perusal of Exs.P4 to P9 would show that each of them was signed by PW.3, PW.4, and another Drugs Inspector, PW.1 and another Mediator, and the Accused herein.
(33)A perusal of Exs.P4 to P12 would show that, in Exs.P4 to
P7, the details of the Accused was given as “Yelleti Satyavathi @ Satyavathi
Doctor (RMP), M/s. Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic, Pedaboddepalli.” Each of the said Documents in Exs.P4 to P7 were signed by PWs.1, 3 and 4, and other
Drugs Inspector and Mediator, who had accompanied them. It is also clear that in each Document, the said Satyavathi had signed in Telugu, by putting the
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201626II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
initial of her surname in English Letter. She had signed in each Page as “Y.సత్య�వతి” [Y.Satyavathi].
(34)It is relevant to mention here that for the first time, at the time of Arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Accused had argued that the
Signatures of ‘Yelleti Satyavathi’ in the above said Documents were not made by the Accused, and that the said Signatures do not belong to them.
(35)A perusal of Ex.P4 would show that apart from the
Signature of the Accused in each Page, the last Page contains a specific endorsement in Telugu, that “4 pages copy of Form No.16 received”. The
Handwriting in the said Endorsement is not denied by the Accused. So also, in the Panchanama in Ex.P5, it is specifically stated that the Panchanama was held at M/s. Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic, and in Page No.2, the name of the person, who was at the Clinic, was mentioned as “Yelleti Satyavathi @
Satyavathi Doctor”, and she was treating the patients at that time. Even this
Panchanama was signed in each page by the Accused, and the last page contains a specific endorsement in Telugu that the Proceedings took place in the presence of the Accused, and copy was served upon her. So also, in Exs.P to P9, the Accused had signed as “Y.సత్య�వతి” [Y.Satyavathi].
(36)For the first time, in the Reply Letter in Ex.P10, the Accused had signed as “Y. Satyavathi” in English. As seen from the said Letter, the
Accused had written the said Letter in her own handwriting, and she had clearly stated therein that she does not have any purchase bills pertaining to the 37 varieties of Drugs seized from her, and that she has purchased the same from various places, and that she does not remember the said places, and that she has purchased the said medicines for the purpose of Children to come to her Clinic, and that she does not know that it is an Offence to sell medicines without licence, and that hereinafter, she will not purchase or sell
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201627II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
the medicines, and that she has stopped the sale of the Drugs; and that it was her first mistake, and hence, she may be excused.
(37)There was a variation of the Signature of the Accused in the
Language of her Signature. But, the Handwriting in the Endorsements found in
Exs.P4 to P6 does not differ. In the Panchanama in Ex.P5, in Page No.1, the
Accused had initially attempted to sign as “Y.Satyavathi” in English, and the name was visible only by half, and then, she had signed in Telugu. It would show that though the Accused had attempted to sign in her normal manner, she had changed the language of her Signature, for obvious reasons. The
Documents clearly show that the entire Proceedings that took place in her presence, and that the Accused had signed her usual signature in Telugu language, with English letter at the place of Surname, as “Y.సత్య�వతి” [Y.Satyavathi], and that she had changed the mode of her Signature from the date of Ex.P10, to take advantage of the Signatures made by her earlier.
(38)With respect to recitals, pertaining to the name of the Clinic as “Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic”, and the name of the Accused as “Yelleti
Satyavathi @ Satyavathi Doctor (RMP)” in Exs.P4 to P7, was not at all denied by the Accused. In fact, in the letter in Ex.P10, in the from address, it is clear that the address as ‘Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic’ was used even by the
Accused. It would show that the Accused had admitted the existence of M/s.
Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic in the Premises.
(39)Ex.P11 is the Statement of the Accused, which is given in the handwriting of the Accused, given before PW.4. A perusal of the said
Statement of the Accused would show that, she had admitted the conducting of raids by PW.4, Seizure of the Drugs, Admission of Offences and failure to possess the Drugs Licence, and purchase of Drugs, and supplying the same to the Patients, etc., and she has sought mercy, by treating it as her first
Offence.
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201628II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
(40)The Letter in Ex.P10 and the Statement in Ex.P11, which are apparently in the handwriting of the Accused, were not at all denied specifically during the Cross-examination of PW.3 and PW.4. A general suggestion was given, to the effect that the Accused did not give any
Statement. It was denied by PW.4. So, due to lack of Cross-examination of
PW.3 and PW.4, with respect to the Alias name of the Accused, as well as the name of the Clinic as “Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic”, and the admission given in
Exs.P10 and P11, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of PW.3 and
PW.4 that the Premises belonged to the Accused, and the Drugs were seized from her possession, was also not discredited. In absence of such specific denial, it has to be inferred that the Exs.P10 and P11 were submitted by the
Accused voluntarily, and the recitals therein, can be treated as Admissions on the part of the Accused.
(41)Further, it is the settled law that the Drugs Inspectors are not considered as Police Officers. Drug Inspectors, appointed under Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, are considered as Public Servants and not as "Police Officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, the Statements recorded by a Drug
Inspector during an investigation are not excluded by Section 25, which bars
Confessions made to Police, making them valid admissions, provided they are made voluntarily.
(42)In the Decision given in the Case of Ramesh Chandra
Mehta Vs. State of West Bengal, reported 1969 [2] SCR 461 = AIR 1970
Supreme Court 940, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that the
Officers of the specialized Departments like Customs, who have powers of investigation, but are not Police Officers, do not fall under Section 25 of the
Evidence Act. The Provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are itself a complete Code, where the Drugs Inspectors are given powers to search,
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201629II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
seize, and to file a Complaint. They are not treated as Police Officers. So, the
Statement given by the Accused before the Drugs Inspectors, i.e. PWs.3 and 4, in the presence of the Mediators i.e., PW.1 and another, can be taken as a valid Confession, and it will not be hit by the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. On that ground, Exs.P10 and P11 would become admissible. They bind the Accused on all aspects.
(43) Further, the present Defence of the Accused that her Son was running a Clinic in the Premises, was not at all taken in the Letter in
Ex.P10 and the Statement in Ex.P11. So, it appears that taking advantage of the delay in the Proceedings, the Accused had changed her version, and given a new version before this Court. No evidence is placed by the Accused to show that her Son was a Doctor, with a valid Licence to run Clinic, at the time of the seizure of Drugs in M.O.No.1 by PW.4.
(44)Ex.P12 is the Copy of the Tax Receipt issued in the name of
PW.2. It had tallied with the Copy of the Tax Receipt submitted by PW.2, along with the Letter under Ex.P1. It shows that the Accused admits that she is residing in the Premises.
(45) Ex.P13 is the Carbon Copy of the Memo filed by the PW.4
before the Learned Magistrate, with respect to the Seizure of Drugs from the
Premises of the Accused. In the Memo in Ex.P13, PW.4 had clearly mentioned about the seizure of Drugs from the Premises of the Accused, and her failure to produce the Drugs Licence, and to furnish the particulars required.
(46)Exs.P14 and P15 are the Carbon Copies of the Forms
No.18, which are Memorandums to Government Analyst, submitted by PW.4, seeking Analysis of Samples, i.e., Betamil GM Cream and Viscodyne Cough
Formula, as mentioned in each of them respectively. Ex.P16 is the Letter addressed by the PW.4 to the Government Analyst, along with the Forms
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201630II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
No.18 in Exs.P14 and P15. In the Ex.P16 also, the name of the Clinic was clearly mentioned as “Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic”, and the name of the
Accused was mentioned as “Yelleti Satyavathi @ Dr. Satyavathi”.
(47)Ex.P17 is the Copy of the Letter, dated 23.04.2014, addressed by PW.4, to the Director General, Drugs and Copy Rights, Drugs
Control Administration, Hyderabad. Herein also, the name of the Clinic was mentioned as ‘M/s. Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic’, while the name of the
Accused was mentioned as ‘Yelleti Satyavathi Alias Dr. Satyavathi’. This Letter was also not discredited by the Accused.
(48)Ex.P18 is the Carbon Copy of the Letter, dated 24.05.2014, addressed by PW.4, to the Municipal Commissioner, Narsipatnam, for furnishing the ownership details of the premises. In this Letter also, the name of the Accused was referred as “Yelleti Satyavathi Alias Dr. Yelleti Satyavathi” was referred. Ex.P19 is the Reply, dated 31.05.2014, received by PW.4, from the then Commissioner, Narsipatnam Municipality, stating that D.No.1-66 is in the name of Bhimavarapu Chinnayya [PW.2]. After receiving this Letter, PW.4 had addressed a Letter, dated 07.06.2014, to PW.2, under Ex.P20. In the said
Carbon Copy of the Letter in Ex.P20 also, PW.4 had mentioning about the seizure of Drugs at M/s. Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic, and failure of the Accused to provide the information, etc., and mentioned the name of the Accused as “Yellei Satyavathi Alias Dr. Satyavathi”. The receipt of this Letter was admitted by PW.2, and the Reply in Ex.P1 was given by PW.2 for this Letter only.
(49)Exs.P21 and 22 are the Analyst Reports. Ex.P21 shows that the sample of Betamil G.M.Cream is of standard quality, and Ex.P22 shows that the sample of Viscodyne Cough Formula is of standard quality.
(50)Ex.P23 is the Letter, dated 01.12.2014, addressed by PW.4, to the Accused. As per the said Letter, a Copy of Analytic Reports in Exs.P21
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201631II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
and P22 were furnished to the Accused, and she was requested to furnish copies of the purchase invoices, distribution particulars, etc. It also contains the endorsement, regarding the receipt of Reports. In this Document also, the
Accused had signed in English language. As a Reply for the same, the Letter,
dated 01.12.2014, in Ex.P24, was said to have been issued by the Accused to
PW.4. Even in this Letter also, the contents of Exs.P10 and P11 are reiterated by the Accused, and she has sought mercy. The Handwriting in the said Letter is also not denied and disputed by the Accused. It is similar to the
Handwritings in the Letter in Ex.P10 and the Statement in Ex.P11.
(51)The recitals in the Exs.P10, P11 and P24 are the
Admissions of the Accused, and they are binding on her, and they are sufficient to say that she is running M/s. Gollaprolu Children’s Clinic, and that she had stocked the Drugs, without License, and that they were seized by
PW.4. It is clear that the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4, coupled with the
Documents in Exs.P10, P11 and P24, which are the Admissions of the
Accused, and Exs.P4 to P9, which were prepared at the Premises at the time of Seizure, clearly establish that the Accused was running the Clinic, and that without any Drugs Licence, she had stocked the Drugs there. When the
Accused was found in possession of huge quantities of Drugs, which were seized, the contention of the Accused that the Stock was used for personal use, by her Son, is not acceptable.
(52)M.O.No.1, which is the Seven Carton Boxes, clearly establish that they are the Drugs, described in Form No.16. It is also clear that right from the beginning, the Accused had failed to furnish the details of the
Supplier of Drugs, and that earlier, she has stated that she does not remember the details of the Persons from whom she has purchased. But, in the Cross- examination of PW.3 and PW.4, it was suggested that they were given to her
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201632II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
son by the Medical Representatives, and the Salable Packs were kept for personal use.
(53)As per Ex.P4, some of the Medicines were found in Multiple
Packs, and they cannot be termed as for personal use. Generally, usage of personal use would be, storing of one item each, and not of multiple items.
The seizure of ‘Physician Samples, not to be sold’, from the possession of the
Accused itself shows that the said Drugs were stocked by the Accused illegally, only for the purpose of sale. If really the Medicines were given to her
Son as Samples, then, the Accused could have examined her Son, as well as
Medical Representatives, to support her contentions. But, she did not do so.
So, the failure of the Accused to furnish the details of the Suppliers is also established.
(54)It is also clear that the Accused had admitted that she did not have any Drugs Licence, and she did not furnish the Copies of the distributors, lease and Purchase Invoices, and did not produce any Records pertaining to the Drugs seized from her possession in the Premises. So, the failure of the Accused to produce such Records is also established.
(55)It is relevant to look into the Provision of Offences alleged herein, and the Penal Provisions thereon, as provided under the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940.
1.Section 18 [c] of the said Act, is punishable under Section 27 [b] [ii] of the said Act. Section 18 provides as follows:- “Section 18 - Prohibition of manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics.— From such date, as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf (a) ……., (b) …….(c) manufacture for
sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale, or
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201633II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
distribute any drug [or cosmetic], except under, and in accordance with
the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Chapter.
……….”
Section 27 - Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter : “Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes, [a] ………………………..
[b] any drug — (i) ……..
(ii) without a valid licence, as required under clause (c) of section 18, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more:
Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three years, and of fine of less than one lakh rupees.”
2.Section 18-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is punishable under Section 28 of the said Act. They provide as follows:-
Section 18-A : Disclosure of the name of the manufacturer, etc. — “Every person, not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall, if so required, disclose to the Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic.”
Section 28 : Penalty for non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer, etc. — “Whoever contravenes the provisions of Section 18A or
Section 24 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201634II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
or with both.”
3.Section 22 [1] [cca] of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, is punishable under Section 22[3] of the said Act. They provide as follows:-
Section 22 - Powers of Inspectors: “(1) Subject to the provisions of section 23 and of any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, an
Inspector may, within the local limits of the area for which he is appointed,—
(a) ……..
(b)…….
………….
(cca) require any person to produce any record, register, or other document relating to the manufacture for sale or for distribution, stocking, exhibition for sale, offer for sale or distribution of any drug or cosmetic in respect of which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Chapter has been, or is being, committed.”
Section 22 (3) provides that “If any person wilfully obstructs an
Inspector in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by or under this
Chapter, or refuses to produce any record, register or other document, when so required under clause (cca) of sub- section (1), he shall be punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” (56)It is clear that the Prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused for the Offences alleged against her. The Decisions relied upon by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor are very much applicable to this
Case, with respect to the credibility of the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4, who are Official Witnesses, and stocking of Drugs for Sale, without any Licence, and non applicability of the Provisions of Cr.P.C., when the Provisions under
Section 22 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are exercised, and with regard to the Samples being found in proper custody, and the chain being complete.
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201635II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
(57)In view of the above discussion, this Court concludes and holds that the Prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused for contravening the Provisions of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the said Act, Section 18-A of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 28 of the said Act, and Section 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 22(3) of the said Act, and thereby, she is liable for Conviction for the same.
Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Prosecution.
13.In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the Offences under
Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the said Act, Section 18-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, punishable under Section 28 of the said Act, and Section 22(1)(cca) of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act punishable under Section 22(3) of the said Act.
Hence, the Accused is convicted for the said Offences under Section 235[2] of
Cr.P.C.
Partly typed to my Dictation, and Partly dictated and transcribed and typed by the Stenographer Grade - I, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.
Sd/- C.K.Gayathri Devi,
Second Additional District and Sessions Judge [Erstwhile I Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge], Visakhapatnam.
When the Accused is questioned regarding the Sentence, she had submitted that her health and the health of her husband is not good, and that her age is 63 years, and the age of her husband is 68 years, and that her grand children are residing with her, and she has to look after them, and that the Sentence and Fine may be reduced, and that in the event of any mistake,
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201636II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
she may be excused, and she may not be imposed Sentence, and Fine may be imposed.
Since the Offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, is a grave Offence, affecting the Society, the Provisions under Section 360 of
Cr.P.C. and the Provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 cannot be applied to this case.
It is clear from the Record that the Offence under Section 18(c), punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) stipulates both Imprisonment and Fine, and a minimum Sentence and Fine is provided therein, and in the event of giving of adequate reasons by the Court, the Sentence of Less than One Year, and Fine of less than Rs.1,00,000/- can be imposed by this Court.
Considering the age of the Accused as well as her health condition, as submitted by her, and the fact that from the date of receiving of the Summons in the present Case in 2017, the Accused had been regularly attending the Court on almost all occasions, except on one or two occasions, and in view of the submissions made by the Accused during the question of the Sentence, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view, regarding the quantum of sentence, and the circumstances submitted by the Accused clearly establish that she requires to be punished for a term of less than 3 years and fine of less than Rs.1,00,000/- for the Offence under Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Considering all the above said aspects, and the entire circumstances of the Case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit matter to take a lenient view, and is inclined to impose a Sentence of Imprisonment of less than 3 years, and Fine of less than Rs.1,00,000/-, by duly recording the above said reasons. The Reasons, as stated supra, are sufficient to impose a lesser Sentence of Imprisonment and Fine upon the Accused.
Hence, the Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201637II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
Imprisonment for a period of Six Months, and to pay a Fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One month, for the
Offence under Section 18 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 27 (b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The Accused is further sentenced to pay a Fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One month, for the
Offence under Section 18-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The Accused is further sentenced to pay a Fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One month, for the
Offence under Section 22 (1) (cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The total Fine payable by the Accused is Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/-).
M.O.No.1 shall be destroyed after the expiry of the Appeal time.
The Accused is informed as to her Right of Appeal before the Hon’ble High
Court against the Judgment of this Court, and that she is entitled for Legal Aid from the Legal Services Institution for filing Appeal, and that she is also entitled for a free Copy of the Judgment.
Sd/- C.K.Gayathri Devi,
Second Additional District and Sessions Judge [Erstwhile I Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge], Visakhapatnam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
PW-1 : M.N.V.Chitti Naidu [Mediator No.1].
PW-2 : Bheemavarapu Chinnayya [Building Owner].
PW-3 : V.Abhipriya [Drugs Inspector].
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201638II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
PW-4 : K.Indira Bharathi [Drugs Inspector/ Defacto Complainant].
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
None.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
Ex.P1 : Letter, dated 07.06.2014, and the Photo Copy of the House Tax
Receipt, submitted by PW.2, to PW.4.
Ex.P2 : Attested Copy of the Gazette, regarding Appointment of PW.4, dated 30.05.2013.
Ex.P3 : Attested Copy of the Proceedings of Posting of PW.4, dated 09.04.2013.
Ex.P4 : Carbon Copy of the Form-16, prepared by PW.4 on 22.04.2014.
Ex.P5 : Carbon Copy of the Panchanama, prepared by PW.4 on 22.04.2014.
Ex.P6 : Carbon Copy of the Form-17, prepared by PW.4 on 22.04.2014.
Ex.P7 : Form-17-A, prepared by PW.4 on 22.04.2014.
Ex.P8 : Rough Sketch, prepared by PW.4 on 22.04.2014.
Ex.P9 : Carbon Copy of the Letter, dated 22.04.2014, addressed by the PW.4, to the Accused.
Ex.P10 : Reply Letter submitted by the Accused, to the above said Notice issued by PW.4 in Ex.P9.
Ex.P11 : Statement of the Accused before PW.4.
Ex.P12 : Copy of the Tax Receipt in the name of PW.2.
Ex.P13 : Carbon Copy of the Memo filed before the Court by PW.4.
Ex.P14 : Carbon Copy of Form – 18, bearing No.16/2024, issued by PW.4.
Ex.P15 : Carbon Copy of Form – 18, bearing No.17/2024, issued by PW.4.
Ex.P16 : Carbon Copy of the Covering Letter, dated 22.04.2014, addressed by
PW.4, to the Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Drugs
Control Administration, Hyderabad.
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 201639II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
Ex.P17 : Letter, dated 23.04.2014, addressed by PW.4, to the Director
General, Drugs and Copyrights, Drugs Control Administration,
Hyderabad.
Ex.P18 : Carbon Copy of the Letter, dated 24.05.2014, addressed by PW.4, to the Municipal Commissioner, Narsipatnam.
Ex.P19 : Reply Letter, dated 31.05.2014, received by PW.4, from the then
Municipal Commissioner, Narsipatnam Municipality.
Ex.P20 : Carbon Copy of the Letter, dated 07.06.2014, addressed by PW.4, to
PW.2.
Ex.P21 : Analysis Report of the Sample No.16 of 2014, dated 01.12.2014, sent by the Government Analyst.
Ex.P22 : Analysis Report of the Sample No.17 of 2014, dated 01.12.2014, sent by the Government Analyst.
Ex.P23 : Letter, dated 01.12.2014, addressed by PW.4, to the Accused, supplying the Copies of the Analysis Reports, etc.,
Ex.P24 : Reply Letter, issued by the Accused, for the above said Letter, dated 01.12.2014, of PW.4 in Ex.P23.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
NIL.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
M.O.No.1 : 7 Carton Boxes.
Sd/- C.K.Gayathri Devi,
Second Additional District and Sessions Judge [Erstwhile I Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge], Visakhapatnam.
APVS0000473520151S.C.M.U. No.130 of 2016, II ADSJ Court, Visakhapatnam,
Date: 15.05.2026.
C A L E N D A R
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
[Erstwhile FIRST ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE],
VISAKHAPATNAM.
Present: Ms. C.K.Gayathri Devi, II Additional District and Sessions Judge [Erstwhile First Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge], Visakhapatnam.
Friday, this the Fifteenth [15th] day of May, 2026.
SESSIONS CASE M.U. No.130 of 2016
P.R.C. No.12 of 2015 on the file of the Learned Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate at Narsipatnam, based on the Complaint filed under Section 32 of
the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, for Violation of Sections 18 (c), 18 (A) and 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Rules made thereunder, punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii), 28 and 22(3) of the said Act.
Name of the Complainant :The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Drugs Inspector,
Narsipatnam.
Name of the Accused:Smt. Yelleti Satyavathi @ Satyavathi
Doctor,age49years,W/o.
Y.V.V.N.Narsimhamurthy, M/s. Gollaprolu
Children’s Clinic, D.No.1-66, Asst.
No.283, 1stWard, Pedaboddepalli,
Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 20162II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
District.
Date, time and Place of : 22.04.2014, at M/s. Gollaprolu Children’s Offence Clinic, D.No.1-66, Asst. No.283, 1st Ward,
Pedaboddepalli, Narsipatnam Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District.
19.02.2015 Date of Complaint:
Date of Apprehension of :- Accused
Date of Release on Bail:-
Whether the Accused is in :On Bail
Jail or on Bail
Date of Commitment:16.02.2016
Date of Commencement of :10.10.2023 Trial
Date of Closure of Trial:05.02.2026
Date of Judgment :15.05.2026
Explanation for the delay:Vide Docket Extract.
Explanation for delay:
This Complaint is filed by the Drug Inspector, Narsipatnam, against the Accused, under Section 32 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, for
Violation of Section 18 (c), Section 18-A and Section 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs &
Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Sec.27(b)(ii), Section 28 and Section 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 respectively.
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 20163II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
The Complaint was taken on file as P.R.C.No.12 of 2015, on the file of the Learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Narsipatnam, for the Offences under Sections 27 (b) (ii), 28 and 22 [3] of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Case was committed to the Learned Metropolitan
Sessions Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam. After receiving the Record, the Case
was numbered as S.C.No.130 of 2016, and was made over to this Court, for disposal according to law.
On 12.09.2018, Accused is present. For opening of the Case under Section 226 of Cr.P.C. by the Additional Public Prosecutor, and for hearing on Charges, the matter was adjourned from time to time. In the meanwhile, due to Corona Pandemic, in view of the Circulars issued by the
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, from time to time, the
Case was adjourned from time to time, in the years 2020 and 2021.
On 15.09.2023, the Accused present. After hearing both sides, the then Presiding Officer of this Court has framed the Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 27 (b) (ii) r/w 18 (c), 28 r/w 18-A, & 22 (3) r/w 22 (i) (cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act against the Accused, and the Charge was read over and explained to her in Telugu, and she hass pleaded not guilty.
Hence, the Case is posted for Trial.
Though Schedule was fixed on 05.10.2023, as the Summons were not served, the Schedule was cancelled, and Summons were issued to
L.Ws.1 and 2, and was posted to 10.10.2023. On 10.10.2023, the Prosecution has commenced the Trial, PW.1 is examined part in Chief, and posted for continuation of Chief Examination. The matter is posted from time to time, due to the absence of PW.1, who suffered with fracture to his leg.
On 26.02.2024, P.W.1 is examined Chief in part, and for continuation of Chief Examination of P.W.1, the case is reposted to 01.03.2024. The Drugs Inspector, namely, Smt. N. Kalyani, who was present in the Court hall was directed to file Original Documents, such as Form-16, Form-
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 20164II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
17 and Mediators Report by next adjournment without fail. Thereafter, the matter was posted from time to time, for production of the Documents from
Committal Court. Inspite of repeated Reminders issued by this Court, the
Committal Court did not send the Documents, and finally, on 06.02.2025, this
Court has received a Letter from the Committal Court, stating that the
Documents could not be traced out.
On 07.03.2025, the Prosecution has filed a Petition under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, and it was numbered as Crl.M.P.No.351 of 2025, and thereafter, the matter is posted from time to time, as Crl.M.P.No.351 of 2025 is pending. On 09.07.2025, the said Crl.M.P.No.351 of 2025 was allowed. For continuation of Chief examination of P.W.1, the matter was posted to 22.07.2025. The Carbon Copies of Form-16, dated 22.04.2014, Form-17,
dated 22.04.2014, and Mediators Report, dated 22.04.2014, which are
available on Record, were taken as Secondary Evidence, as prayed for by the
Petitioner/ Complainant.
On 22.07.2025, P.W.1 was cross examined, and Trial Schedule is fixed for examining the remaining Witnesses, and Summons to the Witnesses, and Proceedings were issued accordingly.
On 13.08.2025, the Prosecution has continued the Trial, and LW.4 is examined as PW.2, and Ex.P1 is marked. On 18.08.2025, LW.5 is examined as PW.3. On 15.09.2025, L.W.7 is examined as P.W.4, and Exs.P2 to P24 and
M.O.No.1 are marked. The evidence of LWs.2, 3 and 6 was given up by the
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The delay had occurred due to non- production of Witnesses by the Prosecution. On 15.09.2026, the Trial was completed, and the Prosecution side Evidence is closed, and the Case is posted for Examination of the Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
On 05.02.2026, the Accused is examined under Section 313,
Cr.P.C., regarding the incriminating material available against her in the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses and Documents, and she had denied
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 20165II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
the same. The Accused had further submitted that there is no evidence on her behalf. Hence, the Defence side evidence is closed, and the Case is posted for Arguments.
On 05.03.2026, Written Arguments of Complainant filed and posted for Arguments of Accused. On 13.03.2026, the Arguments of the
Counsel for the Accused were heard, and the matter was posted for Reply
Arguments of the Prosecution. On 16.04.2026, the Reply of the Additional
Public Prosecutor was heard, and the case was posted to 28.04.2026 for
Judgment.
On 28.04.2026, Judgment could not be dictated, due to preparation of Orders in other matters, and hence, for Judgment, the matter was posted to 13.05.2026. On 13.05.2026 also, Dictation of the Judgment is not completed, and it could not be made ready. Hence, for Judgment, the matter is posted to 15.05.2026.
On 15.05.2026, the Accused is present, and the Judgment is
pronounced in the open Court, vide separate Judgment.
SENTENCE OR ORDER:-
In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the Offence under
Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the said Act, Section 18-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, punishable under Section 28 of the said Act, and Section 22(1)(cca) of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act punishable under Section 22(3) of the said Act.
Hence, the Accused is convicted for the said Offences under Section 235[2] of
Cr.P.C.
Upon hearing the Accused on the question of Sentence, and the
Submissions made by her, and by recording the reasons, the Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months, and to pay a Fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
S.C.M.U. No.130 of 20166II ADSJ Court,
Date: 15.05.2026 Visakhapatnam.
period of One month, for the Offence under Section 18 (c) of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 27 (b) (ii) of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The Accused is further sentenced to pay a Fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One month, for the
Offence under Section 18-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The Accused is further sentenced to pay a Fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One month, for the
Offence under Section 22(i)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The total Fine payable by the Accused is Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/-).
M.O.No.1 shall be destroyed after the expiry of the Appeal time.
The Accused is informed as to her Right of Appeal before the Hon’ble High
Court against the Judgment of this Court, and that she is entitled for Legal Aid from the Legal Services Institution for filing Appeal, and that she is also entitled for a free Copy of the Judgment.
Sd/- C.K.Gayathri Devi,
Second Additional District and Sessions Judge [Erstwhile I Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge], Visakhapatnam.
Copy to:-
1. The Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor.
3. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
4. The Assistant Director, Drugs Control Administration, Visakhapatnam.