Mere possession of a large quantity of medicines without a license does not raise a presumption of possession for sale. The prosecution must affirmatively prove that the accused manufactured the drugs for sale, was selling them, or had stocked or exhibited them for sale.

B. C. Chakrabarti, J.:- This is an appeal against an order of conviction under S. 18 (c) read with S. 27 (a) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The appellant having been found guilty has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 months with a fine of Rs, 300/- in default simple imprisonment for 15 days.

2. Upon perusal of the monthly statement of sessions cases indicating that there has been a sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs. 300/- for an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, there was an order calling for the records of the case. There was however, no order issuing any Rule to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced.

3. The appellant is a registered medical practitioner. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :-

Pursuant to a secret information obtained by S. I., B. Raha (PW 9) of the Enforcement Branch of the Calcutta Police, he along with constable A. Biswas (PW 4) and another constable Mukul Dey (not examined) kept waiting on B. B. Ganguli Street from 8-30 a.m. in the morning of 21-6-1976. While on duty they found the accused proceeding along the northern pavement of the street. He was carrying a brief case (Material Ext. I) and a kit bag slung from his shoulder (Material Ext. II). When he came near 156, B. B. Ganguli Street the police party surrounded the accused in presence of witnesses and on search of his brief case and the kit bag various items of medicines detailed in the F.I.R. were recovered. The accused could not produce any licence or any voucher for the possession of such a large quantity of drugs. He was arrested and eventually a case was started against him. On the same day a search was conducted at the residence of the accused but nothing incriminating was found a 'nil' seizure list (Ext. 4) was prepared. The seizure list in respect of the drugs found in the possession of the accused has been marked Ext. 3.

4. In support of the prosecution case 9 witnesses including S.I. Raha who lodged the formal F. I. R. were examined. The defence did not examine any witness. The defence case however, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination and the statement made by him under S. 313, Cr. P. C. is as follows:-

Nothing incriminating was actually found from the possession of the accused on B. B. Ganguli Street as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in this case out of grudge. The precise case of the accused as to why he has been falsely implicated, has been elaborately stated in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. According to the statement P. W. 3 and some others one day accosted him while he was going towards Sealdah and offered to sell some medicines at cheap rate but without any cash memo. The accused did not accept the offer but went to the office of the Enforcement Branch on 15-6-1976 and made a complaint to S. I. Raha against P. W. 3 and others. On 17-6-1976 the accused was threatened by those young people for having complained against them whereupon he visited the office of the Enforcement Branch once again and told the S. I. that unless something was done he would be constrained to inform the Superior Officers of the S. I. The S. I. assured him that the steps would be taken and persuaded him not to go to the Superior Officer. But on 21-6-1976 at about 1.3o P. M. the S. I. came to the residence of the accused, wanted to see some packets of medicines which he had kept there, and checked them with the cash memos therefor and then finding that one or two items were not covered by the cash memos, demanded some illegal gratification. On the refusal of the accused to oblige him, the accused was arrested and taken to the office of the Enforcement Branch. There he was physically assaulted by P. W. 4 and his signatures were taken on some blank papers. The allegation that he was arrested on his failure to produce any licence for his possession of the medicines at B.B. Ganguli Street was denied.

5. Upon a consideration of the evidence on recor