ORDER :

1. Instant Cr. Revision petition filed under S.397 read with S.401 CrPC, lays challenge to judgment dated 31.82009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur in Cr. Appeal No. 2 of 2006, whereby learned court below, affirmed the judgment/order of conviction dated 27.3.2006/28.3.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ani, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Case No. 1-3 of 2005, tilted as State of H.P. v. Ashish Majumdar, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.18(A) and 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter, ‘Act’), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that on 5.8.2004, complainant Manish Kumar, PW-1, alongwith his Peon Murli Ram, PW-2, after having received instruction from the Drug Controller-cum-Licensing Authority, Shimla, who was in receipt of a complaint that the accused is running his clinic without valid licence and certificate of proper qualification, raided the private clinic being run by accused in the name and style of “Janta Clinic”. Since the accused had stocked and exhibited large quantity of allopathic and Ayurvedic medicines in his clinic, complainant after giving his introduction to the accused, expressed his intention to inspect the clinic. On seeing complainant, people of Dalash got assembled outside the clinic. Complainant asked the accused to show a valid licence and documents of his qualification, under which he was practising medicine. But the accused was unable to produce the licence to stock medicines in the clinic as well as documents with regard to his qualification. Complainant seized two samples of drugs with assistance of Peon Murli Ram in a corrugated box and sealed with seal ‘A’ and took the same into possession. He also took two samples for purpose of testing and analysis against Form 17A Exhibit CW-1A and its receipt was given to the accused. Complainant after having prepared a detailed list Ext. PW-1/B of entire seized drugs from the clinic of accused, in the presence of independent witnesses Budh Ram and Chander Mohan, PW-3 and PW-4, respectively, applied to the competent court of law on 5.8.2004 for permission to retain the seized drugs in his safe custody (Exhibit CW-1/C). The court allowed the complainant to retain the seized drugs in safe custody. Subsequently the complainant sent a registered notice Ext. CW-1/D to the accused on 10.8.2004 asking him to produce relevant purchase record and documents of his qualification within a week but since the accused failed to produce the same, complainant intimated the matter to Drug Controller-cum-Licensing Authority, Shimla through speed post letter Ext. CW-1/E dated 23.8.2004, stating therein that the accused contravened provisions of S.18(c) and 18(A) of the Act and Rules 1949, punishable under S.27(b)(ii), 27(d) and 28(A) of the Act. Complainant after having received proper sanction to prosecute from the competent Authority, filed a complaint in the competent court of law. Court being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused put him notice of accusation for the commission of offence punishable under Ss.18(A) and 18(c) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Prosecution with a view to prove its case, examined as many as four witnesses in total, whereas, opportunity was given to accused to lead evidence in defence, but he failed to avail the same. However, in his statement recorded under S. 313 CrPC, he denied case of prosecution in toto. In his aforesaid statement, accused took a stand that he did not stack and exhibit medicines and claimed himself to be innocent.

4. Learned trial Court, on the basis of entire evidence, be it ocu