Acquittal Upheld Where Prosecution Fails to Produce Original Bills and Link Accused to Misbranded Drugs

The complainant, a Drugs Inspector, inspected the respondent’s medical store on January 21, 1983, and alleged that the respondent was in possession of Idioglobin Syrup bottles with false stickers (Batch No. 1281; expiry Sept 1982) affixed over the original labels.

The manufacturer, M/s Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., reportedly did not manufacture that specific batch/expiry combination.

The state filed a complaint for misbranding under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(c), and 18(a)(vi) read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Act, 1945.

On July 15, 2011, the Trial Court acquitted the respondent, leading to this state appeal.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal was in consonance with recorded facts and settled principles of law.

2. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of misbranding beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the authenticity of the documentary evidence (bills) and the respondent's direct involvement.

Sections 18 and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act regarding the prohibition and penalty for dealing in misbranded drugs.

The Court applied the Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of secondary evidence, noting that carbon copies cannot substitute original documents without proper justification.

Regarding appellate intervention in acquittals, the Court applied principles from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007), Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022), and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), establishing that there is a double presumption of innocence in favor of an acquitted person and that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable views are possible.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally weakened by the failure to produce original sale bills, relying instead on carbon copies which were deemed insufficient to prove the charges under the Evidence Act.

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to examine a key witness—the Medical Representative (Mr. Parimal Pancholi) who allegedly supplied the stock—leaving a significant gap in the evidentiary chain.

The complainant (Drug Inspector) failed to produce cogent evidence connecting the respondent to the act of affixing the false stickers.

Applying the Chandrappa standards, the Court found that the Trial Court’s view was a reasonable one based on the lack of original documentation and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any manifest illegality or perversity in the Trial Court’s reasoning.

The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of acquittal dated July 15, 2011.

It held that unless an acquittal is shown to be perverse or contrary to evidence, the appellate court must respect the reinforced presumption of innocence.