Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"The conviction on the basis of solitary testimony of the Drug Inspector against any person if allowed to continue, the said authority may have the supreme power to falsely implicate any person for the commission of unauthorized stock of drugs." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a conviction for unauthorized stocking of drugs cannot be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a Drug Inspector.

While setting aside the conviction of a pharmacist under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, a single-judge bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta cautioned that allowing such convictions could grant authorities unchecked power to falsely implicate individuals.

The petitioner was convicted by a trial court under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for allegedly stocking a huge quantity of drugs without a valid license, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The prosecution's case rested on a raid conducted by a Drug Inspector at a premises called Praja Vydyasala, during which the alleged seizure was made in the presence of mediators. After the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence, the petitioner approached the High Court through a criminal revision case.

The primary question before the court was whether a conviction for unauthorized stocking of drugs can be recorded solely on the testimony of a Drug Inspector when independent mediators have turned hostile. The court was also called upon to determine if the prosecution had successfully established the accused's legal possession over the premises where the alleged seizure took place.

Prosecution Must Prove Possession Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court emphasized that to establish an offence relating to the unauthorized stocking of drugs under Section 18(a) of the Act, the prosecution is required to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the drugs were recovered from the possession of the accused. The bench noted that apart from the testimony of the Drug Inspector (P.W.1), there was no direct and independent evidence establishing that the drugs were actually seized from the petitioner's possession.

Discrepancies In Seizure Proceedings

The court highlighted glaring inconsistencies regarding the location of the alleged seizure. Form-16 and the subsequent communication seeking sanction for prosecution explicitly mentioned the door number of the room as 29-1075. The prosecution later claimed the actual room was 29-1071, arguing the erroneous number was corrected in the mediatornama. The court rejected this explanation, observing that the correction was never properly proved since the independent mediators had turned hostile during the trial.

Failure To Establish Occupancy

The bench observed that the prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding the possession or occupation of the specific premises by the petitioner. Although the Drug Inspector had purportedly sought particulars regarding the petitioner's occupation of the room, no evidence such as a tenancy agreement or proof of permissive possession was ever presented before the trial court to establish control over the premises.

Evidentiary Value Of Solitary Testimony

Critiquing the lower courts for their failure to properly evaluate the evidence, the High Court observed that both the trial court and the appellate court lost sight of the evidentiary value of the solitary testimony of the Drug Inspector and its legal effect. The bench stressed that relying exclusively on the uncorroborated version of an inspecting authority poses a grave risk of the misuse of statutory powers.

"If the possession of the petitioner is not proved, the offence alleged against the petitioner cannot be said to have been proved."

Lack Of Evidence On Physician Samples

The court further noted significant gaps in the prosecution's narrative concerning the specific drugs seized. The judgment recorded that the prosecution failed to produce any witness to establish the manner in which certain physician samples were allegedly seized from the petitioner. Additionally, no evidence from any medical practitioner was adduced to trace the source from which the petitioner supposedly obtained these specific samples.

Declaring the concurrent findings of the lower courts to be illegal and improper, the High Court allowed the criminal revision case and set aside the orders of conviction and sentence. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges, and the court directed the refund of any fine amount deposited by him, alongside the cancellation of his bail bonds and the discharge of sureties.

Date of Decision: 27 July 2026