- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ramlagan Singh v. State Of Bihar Opposite Party.
Structured Summary of the Opinion (Sahai, J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner was convicted under section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1940, for contravention of clauses (a)(ii) and (c) of section 18 of the same Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The petitioner is the owner of a homeopathic medicine shop named Sathi Homeo Laboratory in Mohalla Bakerganj, Laheriasarai. The prosecution case states that on 12 March 1955 Shyam Sundar Prasad (P.W.2), then Inspector of Drugs, visited the shop and found 44 ampules of quinine bi-hydrochloride, 33 with labels and 11 without labels. Shyam Sundar Prasad was later transferred. Vishwanath Prasad Srivastava (P.W.1) is recorded as Inspector of Drugs who submitted a complaint dated 14 April 1955; that complaint was received by the Sub-divisional Magistrate on 4 May 1955. The petitioner was tried and convicted; this opinion addresses the petition to challenge that conviction and sentence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner's trial was vitiated because an Inspector of Drugs alone can institute a prosecution under the Drugs Act and there was no material on the record to show that Vishwanath Prasad Srivastava (P.W.1) had been duly appointed as an Inspector.
- Whether the finding that the petitioner had stocked 44 ampules of quinine bi-hydrochloride for sale was supported by adequate material.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments (as advanced by Mr. Rameshwar Choudnary)
- The petitioner's trial was vitiated because only an Inspector of Drugs appointed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette can institute a prosecution under Chapter IV of the Drugs Act, and there is no material on the record to show that P.W.1 was so appointed.
- Nothing outside the record (implicitly referring to the Gazette notification) can be looked into to prove appointment.
- Implicitly, challenge to sufficiency of evidence for finding that the ampules were stocked for sale rather than for personal use.
Respondent's Arguments (as presented by the learned Additional Standing Counsel)
- The Court can take judicial notice of appointments notified in the Official Gazette under section 57 of the Evidence Act, and it is unnecessary to place the notification on the trial record as an exhibit.
- The learned Additional Standing Counsel referred to specific Bihar Gazette notifications (with numbers and dates) showing that Vishwanath Prasad Srivastava was appointed temporary Drugs Inspector effective 23 February 1954 and was posted to Tirhut Division effective 31 May 1954, demonstrating that P.W.1 was an Inspector on the date he instituted the prosecution.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Abdul Hamid v. The State, 1955 BLJR 40 | Referenced for the proposition that absence of evidence on the record proving notification of an Inspector may invalidate a prosecution instituted by that person (the State's advocate in that case conceded lack of evidence of notification). | The Court held that Abdul Hamid was not authority to preclude taking the Bihar Gazette into consideration at this stage; in that case the relevant notification was not brought to the learned Judge's notice. Therefore Abdul Hamid did not prevent the court from inspecting the Gazette to ascertain appointment here. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court addressed the challenge to the validity of the prosecution on two related grounds: statutory requirement for appointment and sufficiency of evidence on the charge of stocking for sale.
1) Appointment and authority to institute prosecution:
- The court reviewed the Drugs Act provisions: section 32(1) (no prosecution under Chapter IV except by an Inspector) and section 21(1) (State Government may appoint inspectors by notification in the Official Gazette).
- The petitioner's counsel relied on Abdul Hamid v. The State, where it was conceded there was no evidence on the record of notification; the court observed that in Abdul Hamid the relevant Bihar Gazette notification was not produced to the judge and thus that case did not preclude the court from examining the Gazette in the present matter.
- The court relied on section 57 of the Evidence Act (judicial notice of laws and, under sub-section (7), of official appointments notified in the Gazette) to state that a court may take notice of appointments notified in the Official Gazette and that it is unnecessary for the prosecution to place the notification on the trial record as an exhibit.
- The learned Additional Standing Counsel produced two specific Bihar Gazette notifications (numbers and dates given in the opinion) showing: (a) notification dated 11 March 1954 published 24 March 1954 appointing Vishwanath Prasad Srivastava as temporary Drugs Inspector effective 23 February 1954; and (b) notification dated 20 August 1954 published 1 September 1954 posting him to Tirhut Division effective 31 May 1954 in place of Shyam Sundar Prasad. Based on those notifications the court concluded P.W.1 was an Inspector on the date he instituted the prosecution.
- Accordingly, the court held there was no contravention of section 32(1) and the petitioner's trial was not vitiated for want of appointment evidence on the original trial record.
2) Sufficiency of evidence regarding stocking for sale:
- The court considered the evidence (or lack of direct evidence) and identified two strong circumstantial facts against the petitioner: (a) all 44 ampules were found on racks in his shop among medicines he stocked for sale; and (b) it was unlikely for an individual to keep as many as 44 ampules for personal use.
- On that basis the court held the finding that the ampules were stocked for sale was fully justified despite absence of direct evidence.
3) Conclusion of analysis:
- The court found no good ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence.
- Chaudhuri, J. concurred with Sahai, J.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petition challenging the conviction and sentence was dismissed; the trial was not vitiated for lack of proof of P.W.1's appointment and the conviction on the charge of stocking the ampules for sale was upheld.
Implications: The direct effect is that the petitioner's conviction under section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1940 (contravention of clauses (a)(ii) and (c) of section 18) and the sentence of fine of Rs. 150/- (or three months rigorous imprisonment in default) stand. The opinion does not discuss broader precedent-setting consequences beyond its resolution of the appointment issue by taking judicial notice of Gazette notifications under section 57 of the Evidence Act.
Sahai, J.:— The petitioner has been convicted under section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1940, for contravention of clauses (a)(ii) and (c) of section 18 of the same Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of a homeopathic medicine shop known as Sathi Homeo Laboratory which is situated in Mohalla Bakerganj of Laheriasarai town. The prosecution case is that Shyam Sundar Prasad (P.W 2), who was then the Inspector of Drugs, Tirhut Division, visited the petitioner's shop on the 12th March, 1955 and found 44 ampules of quinine bi hydrochloric, 33 of them being with labels and 11 without labels. Shyam Sundar Prasad was transferred and Vishwanath Prasad Srivastava (P.W 1) was appointed as Inspector of Drugs, Tirhut Division, in May 1954. He submitted a complaint dated the 14th April, 1955, which was received by the Sub-divisional Magistrate concerned on the 4th May, 1955. In due course, the petitioner was put upon his trial with the result which I have already mentioned.
3. The first point which Mr. Rameshwar Choudnary has taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner's trial must be held to be vitiated because an Inspector of Drugs alone can institute a prosecution under the Act and there is no material on the record to show that Vishwanath Prasad Srivastava (P.W 1) was duly appointed as an Inspector. He has also contended that nothing outside the record can be looked into for this purpose. In support of these contentions, he has drawn our attention to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Abdul Hamid v. The State, 1955 BLJR 40. Sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Drugs Act provides that no prosecution under Chapter IV of the Act shall be instituted except by an Inspector. Section 21(1) of the same Act lays down:—
“(1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be inspectors for the purposes of this Chapter within such local limits as it may assign to them respectively.”
There is a proviso to this sub-section, but that is irrelevant for the purposes of this case. The effect of these provisions is that no one except an Inspector appointed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette can launch a prosecution under the Drugs Act. In Abdul Hamid's case, 1955 BLJR 40, the learned Advocate for the State conceded that there was no evidence on the record to prove that Shyam Sundar Prasad, who had instituted the prosecution, had in fact been notified by the State Government to be an Inspector of Drugs. It further appears that the relevant notification in the Bihar Gazette was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge nor was he invited to take it into consideration on this point. The case is, therefore, no authority for the proposition contended for by Mr. Rameshwar Choudhary that this Court cannot take to consideration the Bihar Gazette at this stage in order to scertain whether Vishwanath Prasad Srivastava (P.W 1) was an Inspector appointed by the Government on the date on which he instituted the prosecution.
4. Section 57 of the Evidence Act provides for judicial notice being taken of some facts. Under sub-section (1) Judicial notice has to be taken of all laws in force in the territory of India. It can hardly be argued that the law, which is in question in a particular case, should be put in evidence as an exhibit on the records of that case. Sub-section (7) reads:—
“7. I The accession to office, names, titles, function and signatures of the persons filling for the time being any public office in any State, if the fact of their appointment to such office is notified in any official Gazette.”
Under this sub-section, Judicial notice has to be taken of the office occupied by a particular individual if the fact of his appointment is notified in the official Gazette. Such notice can be taken if the Gazette is produced for inspection of the Court at the time of the argument in the original, appellate or revisional court, just as the law can be perused at any stage under sub-section (1). It is obviously unnecessary for the prosecution to put a copy of the relevant notification on the record of the case as an exhibit.
5. The learned Additional Standing Counsel has referred to notification No. III-DI-1-79/54-6780-H, dated the 11th March, 1954, published in the Bihar Gazette of the 24th March, 1954. Under this notification, Vishwanath Prasad Srivastava was appointed as Drugs Inspector on a temporary basis with effect from the 23rd February, 1954 (afternoon) and was posted in South Bihar. Under notification No. III-DI-1-79/54-21621-H dated the 20th August, 1954, published in the Bihar Gazette of the 1st September, 1954, Vishwanath Prasad Srivastava, temporary Drugs Inspector, was posted to the Tirhut Division with effect from the 31st May, 1954 (afternoon) in place of Shyam Sundar Prasad (P.W 2). In view of these two notifications, there can be no doubt that P.W 1 was an Inspector of Drugs on the date on which he instituted the prosecution in this case. There is, thus, no contravention of section 32(1) of the Act. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner's trial in this case has not been vitiated.
6. The only other point which Mr. Choudhary has taken is that the finding that the petitioner had stocked the ampules of quinine bi hydrochloride for sale is not based upon adequate materials. I have considered this point. There are two very strong circumstances against the petitioner. Firstly all the 44 ampules were found on the racks in his shop where he stocked other medicines for sale. Secondly, no one can ordinarily be expected to keep so many as 44 ampules for personal use. In view of these facts, I am of opinion that the finding is fully justified though there is no direct evidence on the point.
7. I do not find any good ground for interference with the petitioner's conviction and sentence.
8. The application is, therefore, dismissed.
9. Chaudhuri, J.:— I agree.
AD/G.M.J
10. Application dismissed.
Alert