N. D. VENKATESH, J.

( 1 ) THE State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Additional Metropolitan magistrate, Bangalore City, in C. C. No. 2260 of 1974. The respondent was the accused in that case. He was prosecuted by the Drug Inspector, Bangalore, for offences Under Sections 3 (b) and 3 (a) read with Section 7 (o) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements)Act, 154 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegation that tie had caused publication of an advertisement in respect of certain drugs stating that the same would increase sexual pleasure and cure Tuberculosis.

( 2 ) IN support of its case the prosecution has examined four witnesses including the Drug inspector (P. W. 1 ). The accused denied the accusation made against him. Though he has admitted of the seizure of certain drugs from his hotel room, he denied having got Ex. P-l (a) published in the newspaper.

( 3 ) THE accused hails from a place called Palani in Tamil Nadu. He is a native Vaidya and will be visiting several places in the country. Sometimes he comes and stays in Bangalore also.

( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate, after considering the entire evidence on record, came to th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document