This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 6 September 2021 in CRLRC No.413 of 2019, by which interference in the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur dated 16 April, 2019 has been refused.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/promotion-policy-for-rank-of-avm-in-indian-air-force/
4 Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the Trial Court found the case of the prosecution to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the Appellant was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5
On appeal, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, i.e., the lower Appellate Court was faced primarily with the issue, of whether it has been proved that the drugs recovered were in the possession of the appellant for the purpose of sale/distribution.
7 The conviction and sentence in this regard was set aside while others were confirmed.
A further prayer was made to set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 18(A) of the Act and vice it, a fine could be imposed.
Both these provisions concern the disclosure or non-disclosure respectively of the name of the manufacturer.
In such a situation, non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer/person from whom the said medicines were acquired, cannot be said to be endangering public interest ( which obviously, is the primary object of the prohibition in law ) by allowing the circulation of such substances unauthorizedly.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/high-courts-analysis-on-interference-with-arbitral-awards/
Therefore, we find it fit to modify the impugned judgment, set aside the sentence of imprisonment as awarded, and instead thereof, impose a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Appellant.
Case Title: PALANI Vs. THE TAMIL NADU STATE (2024 INSC 110)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000887-000887 / 2024
