Judgment :- 1. The State of Kerala is the appellant. The Drugs Inspector (Additional) Cannanore visited the stationery shop M/s. Abubacker and Company, New Bus Stand, Cannanore-2, and found in that shop 14 articles which according to him were drugs exhibited for sale. The above shop had no licence for stocking and exhibiting drugs for sale. The articles were taken into custody under a mahazar and thereafter produced before court. A complaint was duly filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tellicherry, against the three partners of the concern alleging an offence under S.27 (a) (ii) read with S.18 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, the Act). The accused pleaded not guilty. The Chief Judicial Magistrate found the 1st accused, the respondent herein, guilty of the offence charged, convicted him and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The other two accused were acquitted The respondent filed Crl. Appeal No. 86 of 1974 before the Sessions Court, Tellicherry. The additional Sessions judge, who disposed of the appeal set aside the conviction and acquitted him. The order of acquittal is challenged in this appeal. 2. It is common case that the partnership concern of the respondent has not taken a licence for sale of drugs. Under S.18 (c) no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or sell, or stock or exhibit for sale, or distribute any drug or cosmetic, except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose as provided in the Act. Though it is admitted that Pw. 1, the Drugs Inspector visited the shop of the respondent and took into custody certain articles, the stand taken by the respondent is that the articles were not drugs. S.3 (b) of the Act defines "drug" as follows: 113. Though it is admitted that Pw. 1, the Drugs Inspector visited the shop of the respondent and took into custody certain articles, the stand taken by the respondent is that the articles were not drugs. S.3 (b) of the Act defines "drug" as follows: 113. (b) "drug" includes (1) all medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease in human beings or animals; and (ii) such substances (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the human body or intended to be used for the destruction of vermin or insects which cause disease in human beings or animals, as may be specified from time to time by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette;" The definition is not exhaustive and takes in substances other than medicines. Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edition, Vol. 17, pake 448) explains what a drug is as follows: "The term "drug" includes medicine for internal or external use. In any case of doubt, it will be a question of fact for the determination of the court whether an article is a drug or not, and the answer will depend upon whether or not the substance was sold for use as a medicine. An article is not necessarily a drug because it is included in the British Pharmacopoeia and may be used in the preparation of medicines, nor is an article a drug merely because it is sold under a designation which implies that it contains a drug in its composition when in fact it does not." 3. The Additional Sessions Judge, Tellicherry, held the view that it is a condition precedent for holding that a particular article is a drug, that it should be examined by the Government Analyst and a conviction can be entered only on basis the of the report of the Analyst. The acquittal of the respondent is mainly on the ground that samples of the articles had not been sent to the Government Analyst and his report had not been obtained. The appellate judge refused to act upon the alleged admission in Ext. P3 letter sent by the partnership concern to the Drugs Officer, Trivandrum. 4. The acquittal of the respondent is mainly on the ground that samples of the articles had not been sent to the Government Analyst and his report had not been obtained. The appellate judge refused to act upon the alleged admission in Ext. P3 letter sent by the partnership concern to the Drugs Officer, Trivandrum. 4. The provisions of the Act do not lend support to the view that a report of the Government Analyst is indispensable for holding whether an article is a drug and whether there has been violation of the provisions of S.18(c) of the Act. As mentioned in the passage from Halsbury's Laws of England, extracted above, whether a substance is a drug is a question of fact. An article which falls within the definition will be a drug in spite of the fact that it is not notified as such by the Government and its ingredients are not also disclosed. If an article is proved to be a drug, the sale thereof without a licence is an offence. It is not necessary that the Government Analyst should certify that it is a drug. A certificate from the Government Analyst may in cases of dispute facilitate proof as to the nature of the substance and may help in doubtful cases to find out whether the substance satisfies the definition of 'drug' in the Act. But nowhere in the Act it is stated that before holding that an article is a drug, a report should be obtained regarding its composition from the Government Analyst. 5. The point in issue is whether the articles seized in the instant case are proved to be drugs for which a licence is required under S. 18(c). The trial Magistrate answered the issue in favour of the complainant on the basis of the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 referred to by that court as "experienced Drug Inspectors" and also placing reliance on Ext. P3 letter. On going through the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, I do not find that they provide even formal proof that the articles seized were 'drugs' coming under the Act. Pw.1 no doubt stated that he found M. 0.1 articles being exhibited for sale in the shop of the respondent; but he has not sworn that the articles seized were drugs for which a licence was required under the Act. Pw. Pw.1 no doubt stated that he found M. 0.1 articles being exhibited for sale in the shop of the respondent; but he has not sworn that the articles seized were drugs for which a licence was required under the Act. Pw. 2 states that he was present when M 0.1 series were taken into custody and that these articles required licence under the Drugs Act. He does not say that the articles seized were either drugs or cosmetics. The offence alleged against the respondent is a serious one for which a minimum sentence of imprisonment is prescribed. It may not be proper to base a conviction on such scrappy materials and without even formal evidence that the articles seized are either drugs or cosmetics. 6. In addition to the testimony of Pws.1 and 2 the trial court relied on Ext. P3 a letter sent by the partnership concern to the Drugs Officer, Trivandrum. The letter begins with a request for grant of a licence and proceeds to say that the drugs authorities, at Cannanore had taken some goods from the shop on 29 81972, that they (the firm) had not known about the Drugs Act and that in future they would not deal with drugs without a licence. Assuming that the above amounted to an admission that the articles seized were drugs, there is no evidence as to who signed in Ext. P3. Admittedly the stationery shop belonged to three persons. Therefore unless it is proved that Ext. P3 contains the signature of the respondent, it cannot be used as an admission by him. Therefore the trial court was not justified in making use of Ext. P3 for the purpose of convicting the respondent. There are thus no sufficient reasons for interfering with the order of acquittal. The appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.