Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court

"The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has 'very substantial and compelling reasons' for doing so." Telangana High Court, in a judgment dated 30 September 2026, upheld the acquittal of an accused charged under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The Court emphasized that in the absence of corroborative evidence from independent witnesses and the failure of the prosecution to investigate critical leads, a trial court's order of acquittal, which reinforces the presumption of innocence, cannot be overturned.

Failure to Establish Possession

The prosecution case originated from a 2004 raid on the respondent’s premises by the Drugs Inspector, who alleged that the accused was stocking and selling medicines without a valid licence. While the prosecution relied on the official testimony of the Drugs Inspector, the Court noted significant lapses in the investigative process. Crucially, the police officer who first alerted the authorities to the existence of the medicines was neither cited nor examined as a witness.

Need for Independent Corroboration

The Court observed that in cases involving the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the testimony of independent panch witnesses is of paramount importance to corroborate the official version of events. In this instance, the prosecution's own panch witnesses failed to support the case. The Court held that the failure of these witnesses, combined with the prosecution's inability to investigate the accused's claim that the medicines belonged to a relative, rendered the prosecution's evidence insufficient to secure a conviction.

Trial Court Findings Must Be Given Weight

The High Court reiterated the settled legal position regarding appeals against acquittal, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court held that an appellate court must exercise restraint and can only interfere if the trial court’s findings are palpably wrong or based on an erroneous view of the law.

"If two reasonable views can be reached one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi observed that the trial court had provided a cogent and well-reasoned judgment that correctly identified the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The High Court affirmed that because the trial court’s view was a reasonable and plausible one, it did not warrant interference. Finding no "substantial and compelling reasons" to disturb the acquittal, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State, maintaining that the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt remained undischarged by the prosecution.

Date of Decision: 30 September 2026