Drugs if can be said to be offered for sale.

D.P.Hiremath, J.

The complainant - Drugs Inspector prosecuted respondents herein under various provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940, the most material among these provisions being Sec.18(a) and (c) of the Act. A-1 is the name of the shop whereas A-2 is the proprietor.A-3 is the father of A-2 was present when the complainant visited the shop. Business was being carried out in this shop at Mysore in provisions and other articles and not in drugs. On 4. 1982 at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant is said to have inspected this shop along with two panchas P.Ws.2 and 3 and he found huge stocks of drugs, stocked and exhibited for sale along with other saleable items on the racks. He took samples out of them of Penicillin eye ointment, Novalgin and Analgin . drugs and not others. He subjected them for chemical analysis and got a report as per Ex.P-17. Copy of the report was sent to the accused within the time prescribed under the Act and thereafter complaint came to be filed. P. W.2 did not support the complainant’s case and therefore he was treated as hostile and cross-examined. P.W.3 gave evi-dence as a panch witness. The trial court relying on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sanat Kumar v. State of IV. B., 1984 Crl.L.J. 931 and also of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd.Shahbir v. Stale of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 564, acquitted the accused holding that the complainant had failed to prove that these drugs were offered for sale. The Slate has challenged their acquittal. It is urged for the appellant-State that the trial court ought to have found that when they were kept in racks in the shop there was offer for sale.

2. Sec. 18(a) came to be amended in the year 1982 introducing “offer for sale” also being prohibited under Sec.18(a) of the principal Act. Relying on this it is urged for the appellant that keeping of these drugs without licence in one of the racks of the shop was itself an offer for sale. The defence of the accused was that some person had brought them in a box, kept them and went away and even before he came back to take the box they were seized by P.W.1. Apart from this defence we have to examine if there is evidence to show as a fact that there was offer for sale, meaning thereby that they were exhibited in the shop so as to attract the customers and make them know that they were being offered for sale to whosoever intended to purchase them. In the decision of the Supreme Court mere possession was held to be not sufficient to attract Sec. 18(a) of the Act. When that decision came to be rendered Sec. 18 stood without introducing the words “offer for sale”. Similar was the situation when the decision came to be rendered by Calcutta High Court. In both these cases possession came up for consideration and it was held that mere possession was not sufficient to hold the accused guilty under Sec.18(a) of the Act.

3. If we consider the general connotation of the words “offer for sale” and in the context it is understood by intending customers, exhibiting them in a prominent manner in a shop, whether dealing in the same goods or some other goods, would amount to offer for sale. Therefore, ultimately the manner of keeping or exhibiting them in a shop would assume relevance and importance to see if they were really offered for sale. Admittedly in the shop in question the accused were dealing in provisions and other articles and at any rate that was not a drug-shop. P.W.3 one of the panch witnesses who was having his shop opposite to the shop of the accused stated that he had never seen the accused selling any drugs in their shop. P.W.1 deposed that he had got credible information that morning that A1’s shop was slocking and selling all kinds of drugs and therefore he says that he raided the premises along with the panch witnesses at about 11.30 a.m. and found all types of drugs exhibited for sale with other saleable goods in the racks. There were 12 items including Vicks, S