JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - The applicant, Ram Swarup, is a doctor practising medicine in district Etawah. On 8-12-1967, G. R. Jain, Drug Inspector, Kanpur Region, went to the applicant's shop and found that the applicant had stocked and exhibited for sale the drugs which arc mentioned in list 17 Ka on the record without possessing the necessary drugs licence for the sale of those medicines. The Inspector further found that the applicant did not maintain any "sale records" as required u/R. 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. G. R. Jain, therefore, filed a complaint against the applicant u /Ss. 18/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 before the learned SDM, Auraiya, district Etawah, on 27-1-1968, and the learned SDM framed a charge against the applicant u /S. 18/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 1940. 2. Against the framing of the charge by the learned Magistrate the applicant preferred a revision which was allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Etawah, who has made the present reference to this Court. 3. I have heard Sri T.N. Porwar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Sri Roop Kishore Srivastava, the learned counsel holding the brief for the State. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was a registered medical practitioner and was entitled to keep the medicines shown in list 17 Ka and no offence u / S. 18/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, has been committed by the applicant. There is force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 4. Paper No. 34 Ka on record is a certificate of registration filed by the, applicant which shows that the applicant was registered at No. 3536 with the1 Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad U.P on 8-3-1964 and, thus, he was a registered medical practitioner within the provisions of the UP Indian Medicine Act, 1935. 4. Paper No. 34 Ka on record is a certificate of registration filed by the, applicant which shows that the applicant was registered at No. 3536 with the1 Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad U.P on 8-3-1964 and, thus, he was a registered medical practitioner within the provisions of the UP Indian Medicine Act, 1935. Paper No. 50/2 Ka is the copy of the notification issued by the UP Government Chikitsa (Ga) Vibhag, Luck now, dated 6-9-1961, under which a person, who is registered with the Board of Indian Medicine, Uttar Pradesh, under the UP Indian _Medicine Act, 1935, is entitled to the exceptions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and he could, therefore, under the law keep the medicines recovered from his shop for prescribing them to his patients. He, however, could not sell those medicines without a licence. But there is no evidence on the record to show that the applicant was keeping those medicines for selling them and not for supplying them to his patients. G. R. Jain, the Drug Inspector, admitted in his statement that he had not seen the applicant selling the medicines in dispute nor did he examine any person to whom such a medicine had been sold by the applicant. Thus there is nothing on the record to show that the medicines mentioned in list 17 Ka were stored by the applicant for sale. The referring court was, therefore, correct in observing that the applicant has stored the medicines for prescription to his patients and as the applicant was entitled to the exception under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as provided under the notification of UP Government, Chikitsa (Ga) Vibha, Lucknow, dated 6-9-1961, the applicant did not commit any offence and no charge under section 1S/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 could have been framed against the applicant. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons mentioned above I accept the reference and quash the charge framed against the applicant under section 18/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.