Judgment

FAZAL ALI, J.:- In this appeal by special leave the appellant has been convicted under S. 27 (a) (i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- as modified by the High Court. The trial court also convicted the appellant under S. 27 (a) (ii) and S. 28 of the Act but no separate sentence was awarded under these counts. The trial court had, in fact, imposed a sentence of imprisonment only till the rising of the Court but the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction enhanced the sentence to one years rigorous imprisonment, and hence this appeal by special leave. According to the prosecution, on 5-5-1970 at about 11.30 a.m. the Complainant Drugs Inspector, Jalgaon received a telephonic message from the Senior Railway Sub-Inspector Bhusawal to the effect that the appellant had been caught at the Bhusawal railway station with 17 plastic containers containing 17,000 white coloured tablets. On receiving this message the complainant went to Bhusawal railway station on the next day and after taking permission from the Magistrate he took the sample of the tablets and sent it to the public analyst and after receiving his report, he filed a complaint against the appellant under the various sections of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The learned trial Magistrate framed two charges against the appellant. One charge was under Ss. 27 (a) (i) and 27 (a) (ii) of the Drugs Cosmetics Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the other charge related to S. 28 read with S. 18-A of the Act. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted all the facts contained in the charge. The appellant, however, stated that as this was his first offence, he promised not to commit any offence again and as he was an agriculturist and a young man, he pleaded for mercy. The prosecution in support of the case examined the complainant to prove the facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant. The learned Magistrate accepted the plea of guilty and convicted the appellant as indicated in the judgment. The High Court, however, enhanced the sentence as mentioned above.

2. Mr. U. P. Singh appearing in support of the appeal has raised a short point before us. He has submitted that taking the prosecution case at its face value, no offence can be said to have been committed under S. 27 (a) (i) or (ii) of the Act. It was submitted that the ingredients required by S. 27 have not been proved in this case and therefore, even if, the accused pleaded guilty, that will not enable the prosecution to convict him on his plea of guilty. Sec. 18 (c) runs thus :

"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 under this Chapter."

3. Section 27 is the penal section under which the offence is punishable and this section runs thus :

"Whoever himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes-

(a) any drug-

(i) deemed to be misbranded under Cl. (a), Cl. (b), Cl. (c), Cl. (d), Cl. (f) or Cl. (g) of S. 17 or adulterated under Section 17-B; or

(ii) without a valid licence as required under Cl. (c) of S. 18."

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 recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year."

4. It was contended by Mr. Singh that in order to fall within the ambit of this section the accused must manufacture the drugs for sale or stock or exhibit for sale or distribute the same. There is no evidence in this case to show that the appellant had any shop or that he was a distributing agent. All that has been shown is that the tablets concerned were recovered from his possession. It was urged that possession