JUDGMENT-[His Lordship after setting out the facts, proceeded]. The conviction is not challenged by accused No.1 before me. It is clear that the learned Magistrate was inclined to hold that the conviction of accused No. 1 is necessary in view of the provisions of section 34 (2) of the Act. It is true that when awarding the sentence, which is less than the minimum sentence, the learned Magistrate has not done his duty of specifying the special reasons, which he ought to have stated under section 27 of the Act. It is also true that the offence under section 18 is a serious offence, as the drugs which are not of standard quality or mis-branded are dangerous to public life and harmful to the community. So far as the offence of absence of licence was concerned, the offence charged against the accused is regarding failure to renew the licence. He originally had a licence; and it appears that he made an application for renewal after the time had expired and obtained the licence in April 1968. Even in regard to the absence of licence the plea of the accused was that he had relied on M. B. jayakar, who is also a chemist, to make the application for renewal.

2. Now, section 34 of the Act is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document