The sale of drugs without a license under Section 18(c) and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is an offence.

1. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.6.2008 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT), Sawai Madhopur in cr. Appeal no. 07/2006 wherein the order of conviction and sentence of accused petitioner passed by the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur has been confirmed, and against the judgment dated 13.10.2004 passed by learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur in cr. Case no. 518/1988 wherein he has convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 18(c) read with 27(b)(ii) Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sentenced the accused petitioner for one year SI and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months SI.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.12.1988, a complaint came to be filed by the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur by complainant Sunil Kumar, Drug Inspector, Sawai Madhopur to the effect that on 30.1.1987, Drug Inspector, Dholpur Headquarter, Shri Heeralal Bansal carried out the inspection of the clinic of accused Kalyan Sahai situated at Gudachandraji Bus Stand and found certain allopathic medicines stocked and exhibited at the premises of the petitioner for which no license was produced on demand.

3. On the basis of above, the medicines and the bills of various medical shops is wherefrom the medicines were purchased were seized in presence of Rajendra Kumar, Ramklshore, Mithalal, Umesh Chand, Ramswaroop Saini and Kalyan Sahai.

4. After filing of complaint, the learned trial court took cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 18(c)/27(b)(li) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (herein after referred to be as 'the Act of 1940') and charge was framed against the petitioner, to which the petitioner denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 06 witnesses and got certain documents exhibited. The statement of accused petitioner under Section 313 Cr.RC. was recorded. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court vide order dated 13.10.2004 convicted the appellant as under:

vfHk;kstu i{k dh lk{; ls vfHk;qDr loZJh dY;k.k lgk; lSuh fuoklh xq<+kpUnzth rglhy uknkSrh 2ds fo:) yxk;k x;k vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk 18(x) lifBr /kkjk 27(ch)(11) vkS"kf/k ,oa lkSUn;Z izlk/ku lkexzh vf/kfu;e] 1940 dk lUnsg ls ijs izekf.kr djkus esa lQy jgus ds dkj.k mls mDr vkjksi ds fy, nks"kh djkj fd;k tkrk gSA

5. Against the said order dated 13.10.2004, the appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate court, who vide order dated 10.6.2008 has passed the following order:

vfHk;qDr vihykaV dY;k.k lgk; lSuh iq= Jh 'kadj lgk; uSuh fuoklh xq<+kpUnzth] rglhy uknkSrh ftyk lokbZ ek/kksiqj }kjk izdj.k uEcjh QkStnkjh la0 518@88] tqeZ /kkjk 18(x)@27 vkS"kf/k ,oa lkSUn;Z izlk/ku lkexzh vf/kfu;e] 1940 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 13-10-2004 ds lEcU/k esa izLrqr dh x;h ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA ekrgr U;k;ky; eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~zsV] lokbZ ek/kksiqj dk fu.kZ; ,oa n.Mkns'k fnukad 13-10-2004 iq"V fd;k tkrk gSA iqf"V okjaV cuk;k tkosA fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr ds lkFk fo}ku ekrgr U;k;ky; dh i=koyh rqjUr ykSVkbZ tkosA

6. Hence this revision petition has been filed.Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the findings of both the courts below in convicting the petitioner is patently illegal and perverse and contrary to facts on record. Both the courts below have misinterpreted the Section 18(c) and Section 27 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, therefore, both the impugned judgment and orders of sentence are erroneous and bad in the eyes of law. It has been contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case upon the fact that the petitioner had a retail shop or that he was a distribution agent. All that has been showed is that the medicines have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and that he had stocked the medicines in his clinic. The possession of medicines would not fall within the mischief of Section 27 of the Act. In the instant case there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had eit