"Learned counsel for the Appellant cited Section 1(18)(b)(i) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act and submitted that there was no proof that the Appellant had any intention to sell adulterated drugs to the public. Section 1(18)(b)(i) of the Act provides as follows:- "Whenever any person is charged under the preceding paragraph (a)(ii), it shall be a defence if he can establish that he did not know or had no reason to know or believe that the petroleum, petroleum product, food, drink, drug, medical preparation or manufactured or processed product has been adulterated or otherwise rendered noxious dangerous or unfit". Intention is defined by the Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition as a determination to act in a certain way or to do a certain thing. A state of mind in which a person seeks to accomplish a given result through a course of action. Intention therefore is a mental attitude which can seldom be proved by direct evidence but can be proved by circumstances from which it may be inferred. Section 1(18)(b)(i) of the Act places the burden of proof of lack of intention on the person that is charged with the offence. The Appellant throughout has failed to show that he had no intention to sell adulterated drug to Roca Pharmacy for public consumption. The lower Court in my view rightly upheld the decision of the trial Court on the grounds that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."
Per GALINJE, J.S.C. in ADEYEMO ABIODUN v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
(2018) LPELR-43838(SC)
Summary
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on the Offence of Dealing in Counterfeit and fake Drugs.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The Appellant herein along with one other accused person and Barewa Pharmaceutical Limited were arraigned before the Federal High Court, Lagos on a six counts amended charge for various offences under Counterfeit and Fake Drugs And Unwholesome Processed Foods (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap C 34 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, and Miscellaneous Offences Act Cap M17 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. The Appellant and his co-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. In order to prove its case the prosecution called seven witnesses and tendered several documents that were admitted in evidence.
???The Appellant who was the 2nd accused person at the trial Court was the only witness called by the defence and he testified as DW1. At the end of the trial, and in a reserved and considered judgment, delivered on the 17th May, 2013, Okeke J found the Appellant and the two other accused persons guilty of the offence under counts 3 and 4 of the amended charge and they were all convicted accordingly. Appellant and the 2nd convict were sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment on each of the two counts, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The 3rd convict being a company was sentenced as charged and it was ordered to be wound up and its assets forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria. They were however acquitted and discharged from the remaining counts.
Being aggrieved with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Appeal was heard and in a reserved and considered judgment delivered on the 31st of May 2016, the conviction and sentence of the appellant on count 3 were set aside while the conviction and sentence on count 4 were affirmed.
Further dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
