ORDER J.N. Takru, J. - This appeal by the State of U.P. is directed against an order of the learned SDM, Jalesar, acquitting the Respondent of offences u/s 18(a)(i) and 18(a)(ii) of the Drugs Act (Act XIII of 1940). 2. The aforesaid appeal arises out of a complaint filed by Sri S.C. Agar-wal, Regional Inspector of Drugs, Aligarh, on the allegations that the Respondent carried on the business of a Chemist and Druggist in Jalesar under the name and style of M/S. Gupta and Go. (M/S. Gupta Medical Stores). On the 23rd May 1962, at about 11.30, he (the Inspector) went to the said shop of the Respondent, and found him stocking and exhibiting for sale, on the dispensing table of his shop, about 14 ozs. of a drug in a bottle labelled as 'Oil Clove Zangi'. The Inspector suspected the quality of this drug. He, therefore, purchased the bottle, along with the contents, from the Respondent for Rule 10/ for test and analysis, under the provisions of the Drugs Act and the Rules framed hereunder. The drug thus purchased was then divided in 4 parts, and each part was put in a separate phial and sealed in the presence of the Respondent. Thereafter one phial was given to the Respondent, and of the remaining three phials one was sent to the Government Analyst, Lucknow for analysis. On receipt of the report of the Government Analyst, that the said sample was below the standards laid down in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, the Respondent was prosecuted under Sections 27(a) and 27(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940, for contravention of Sections 18(a)(i) and 18(a)(ii) of the said Act. 3. The Respondent admitted the taking of the sample from his shop on the 23rd February 1962. His case, however, was that he took out the said bottle from an almirah of his shop which was kept in the second room. According to him 'Oil Clove Zangi' was not a drug, and was not used for medicinal purposes, and, further, that he never sold it as medicine. He also stated that as the said bottle bore a label showing that it was 'made in France' its contents could not conform to the standard laid down in the Indian Pharmacopoeia. 4. The prosecution examined Sri Suresh Chandra Agarwal to prove the taking of the sample, as alleged by it. He also stated that as the said bottle bore a label showing that it was 'made in France' its contents could not conform to the standard laid down in the Indian Pharmacopoeia. 4. The prosecution examined Sri Suresh Chandra Agarwal to prove the taking of the sample, as alleged by it. In addition it relied upon the report of the Public Analyst, Ex Ka 10, to show that the sample which was taken from the Respondent was far below the standard prescribed for 'Oil Clove Zangi' in the Indian Pharmacopoeia. The Respondent examined one Ram Bharose Lal to prove that the said bottle of 'Oil Clove Zangi' was purchased by the Respondent from his shop in Agra. The learned Magistrate held that as it had hot been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the bottle of 'Oil Clove Zangi' was taken from the dispensing table of the accused, it could not be said that it was kept by him for medicinal purpose and so he could not be held to have contravened any provision of the Drugs Act. Accordingly, giving him the benefit of the doubt, he ordered his acquittal. 5. On behalf of the Appellant, the learned Government Advocate strenuously contended that, as the finding of the learned Magistrate was contrary to the evidence on record,, and - to the law applicable thereto, the order of acquittal was bad and was liable to be set aside. After hearing the learned Government Advocate, I am satisfied that it is unnecessary for me to examine the grounds on which the order of acquittal was assailed by him, as, in my opinion, this appeal is likely to fail on the short ground, that the pro section has failed to prove that the sample of the drug assuming, without deciding, that it is a 'drug'-which was recovered from the shop of the Respondent, was not in conformity with the standards laid down in any of the Pharmacopoeia referred to in the Schedule to the Drugs Act and the Rule made thereunder. It is common case that the a rug in question falls under Item No. 4, i. e. under the heading of 'other drugs' mentioned in the Schedule, to which the standard of 'identity purity and strength applicable was a specified in the (current edition for the time being of the British Pharmacopoeia) or the British Pharmaceutical Code or any other prescribed Pharmacopoeia or adopted by the Permaner Commission on Biological Standard station of the (World Health Organization). Rule 124 framed under the Dru Act, however, makes the standards lay down in four other Pharmacopoeia viz. the Indian Pharmacopoeia, to Pharmacopoeia of the United State the National Formulary of the Unit States, and the State Pharmacopoe of the Union of Soviet Socialist for publics, also applicable to 'other drug Reading this rule with Item No. 4 the Schedule referred to above, it clear that before a person can be con evicted for stocking or exhibiting for sale a drug, which is below the standard prescribed for it, the prosecution has to prove that it does not conform to any of the standards laid down in any of the Pharmacopoeias enumerated in the Schedule and Rule 124, and it is, therefore, not sufficient to show that it is below the standard prescribed by the Indian Pharmacopoeia. "The report of the Public Anahst, Ex Ka 10 shows that the drug in question was tested and analyzed, and was found to be below the standard laid down in the Indian Pharmacopoeia. There is no thing in it to show, that the said drug was also found to be below the standards prescribed in the other Pharmacopoeias referred to in the Schedule or Rule 124. It is noteworthy, that the Inspector of Drugs, was fully alive to this tact, for in his letter Ex Ka 8 which he sent to the Respondent, he wrote to him that in the Drugs Act 'every drug has to conform either with the standards laid down in IP, BP, BPC, any other pharmacopoeia or the formula declared on its label'. When this aspect of the matter was brought to the notice, of the learned Government Advocate at the first hearing of this appeal, he prayed for a short adjournment to enable him to obtain instructions in that regard from the Government Analyst, U.P. and on one of the subsequent dates of the hearing of this appeal, he showed me a letter which was sent to him by the Government Analvst, U.P. Lucknow, in which the latter had set out the comparative standards prescribed in the British, the Indian, and the United States Pharmacopoeias, from which it would appear that, the drug recovered from the shop of the Respondent was also below the standards prescribed by the first and the third pharmacopoeias referred to above. However, in the same letter it was stated that the State Pharmacopoeia of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not available in the laboratory, from which it follows that the prosecution has failed to establish that the drug in question was also below the standard prescribed by the Soviet Pharmacopoeia. It is, therefore, clear that the prosecution has failed to show that the drug recovered from the shop of the Respondent was below the standards prescribed by all the Pharmacopoeias mentioned in the Schedule and Rule 124. 6. The view taken by me finds further support from the fact that in 1964, the Parliament, by the Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Act, Act 13 of 1964, amended Item No. 4 in the Schedule of the Drugs Act-which by the Drugs (Amendment) Act of 1962 (Act 21 of 1962) was renamed as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act-and laid down that all drugs which were included in the Indian Pharmacopoeia had to comply with the standard prescribed in that pharmacopoeia. This amendment was presumably, made on the basic of experience gained, in order to obviate a situation such as has arisen in the present case. Since this amendment was" made after the termination of the pre sent prosecution, it will obviously have no application to the same. 7. For the reasons stated above, this appeal has no force and is dismissed.