Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J. :- On March 10, 1966 the appellant was apprehended by a Railway constable at the gate of the Malkapur Railway Station, immediately after he had obtained the delivery of a parcel. The parcel was found to contain 95,000 capsules of Seco Barbital Sodium which is a sedative agent and is commonly used for intoxication. The intoxicant is popularly called "Lal Paari".

2. The appellant was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Malkapur for offence under Sections 18 (a)(ii) and 18(c) read with Section 27 (a)(ii) and 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 23 of 1940, on the charge that he had stocked for a sale misbranded drug and that he had no license for stocking the drug for sale. The appellant admitted that he was carrying the parcel at the time of his arrest but his defence was that he took delivery of the parcel on behalf of the Mahamud Jamadar who had represented to him that the parcel contained a science apparatus meant for a school. The Magistrate rejected this defence as untrue, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1200/-.

3. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana acquitted the appellant on the view that though the facts raised a suspicion that the appellant or some other person on whose behalf the appellant had taken delivery of the parcel may have had the object of selling the capsules, the mere fact that the appellant was carrying the parcel would not justify the inference that the drug was stocked for sale.

4. That decision was set aside in appeal by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) which held that the prosecution had proved conclusively that the accused had stocked the drug for sale. The High Court sentenced the appellant to the minimum sentence of one year s imprisonment, prescribed by the Act. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court.

5. Under Section 3 (b) (i) of the Durgs and Cosmetics Act 1940, drug includes "all medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease in human beings or animals Section 17 by its seven clauses defines misbranded drugs and cl. (e) thereof which is here relevant says that a drug shall be deemed to be misbranded if it is not labelled in the prescribed manner. Section 18(a)(ii) provides that "no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacturer for sale, or sell or stock or exhibit for sale or distribute any misbranded drug" - Section 18 (c) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, or sell, or stock or exhibit for sale or distribute any drug or cosmetic except under and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose" - Section 27 (a) provides that whoever himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes any drug (i) deemed to be misbranded under clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (f) or (g) of Section 17, or (ii) without a valid licence as required under Section 18 (c) shall be punishable with imprisonment, for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Provided that the Court may for any special reasons to be recored in writing impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year.

6. It is common ground that the substance which the appellant was found carrying in a drug and a misbranded drug and that he had no valid licence to stock it for sale. Before the High Court and the lower Courts it was also common ground that the appellant had stocked the drug. The controversy was limited to the question whether the appellant had stocked the drug for sale . The trial Court and the High Court relied upon various circumstances particularly the circumstance that the appellant was found in possession of as many as 95,000 capsules in support of their conclusion that the