JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Shri H.S. Bindra has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 18-3-1975 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, setting aside the conviction of the revisionist under section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1940 by the trial court and sending the case back to his court for retrial in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in the judgment. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Bindra Chemical Corporation Telebara, Shahdra, Delhi, are the manufacturers of Youbraj Plaster also labelled as Belladona Plaster. The revisionist is said to be the Manager of the said concern. Certain quantity of Youbraj Plaster was sold by the said concern to M/s. Leelaram Brother of Agra. Chetan Das and Moolraj who were also accused in this case and were acquitted by the trial court were the proprietors of the firm M/s. Leelaram Brothers. On 20-4-1962 certain quantity of Youbraj Plaster was sold by M/s. Leelaram Brothers to Chintamani Vaidya of Sikundrarao of district Aligarh. On 6-7-72 Sri H.C. Aggarwal, Regional Inspector of Drugs, Aligarh Region, inspected the shop of Chintamani Vaidya and found the said drugs exposed for sale. Its samples were taken in the manner prescribed. On examination by the Government Analyst it was found that it did not contain any alkaloids and was of sub-standard quality. Therefore, R.K. Arora, Regional Inspector of Drugs, Agra, filed a complaint against Chetandas Moolraj and H.S. Bindra. The complaint was under section 27(a) and 27(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940 for contravention of the provisions of sections 18(a) sub-clause 2 and 18(b) read with section 17(e)(f) of the said Act for manufacturing and selling sub-standard quality of misbranded drug. 3. It is needless to refer to the defence of Chetandas and Moolraj because they have been acquitted by the trial court. So far as the revisionist is concerned, be gave out that Youbraj Plaster is Ayurvedic and Unani preparation for which no licence was required. Its equivalent is Belladona Plaster in English. He also gave out that it was not at all misbranded and he mined two witnesses to prove that the drug was actually Unani and Ayurvedic preparation. 4. The learned trial court acquitted Chetandas and Moolraj but convicted the revisionist as he was of opinion that the drug was defined in the Drugs Act and Belladona Plaster should necessarily contain Alkaloids. 4. The learned trial court acquitted Chetandas and Moolraj but convicted the revisionist as he was of opinion that the drug was defined in the Drugs Act and Belladona Plaster should necessarily contain Alkaloids. Since Youbraj Plaster did not contain it, it was of sub-standard quality. The revisionist was sentenced to undergo one years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of its payment to six months further R.I. 5. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the learned trial court had failed to decide whether Youbraj Plaster was Unani or Ayurvedic preparation and according to which formula it was prepared. He also made certain other observations and remanded the case for retrial. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as for the State and have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. The sample was admittedly taken on 6-7-1962 and the Drugs Act, 1940, had defined a drug as follows : - "Drug" includes - (i) 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 other than medicines and substances exclusively used or prepared for use in accordance with the Ayurvedic and Unani system of medicine; 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 aforesaid discussion makes it clear that the medicines and substances exclusively used or prepared for use in accordance with the Ayurvedic or Unani systems of medicines were excluded from the definition of Drug. 7. By amending Act 13 of 1964 definition of Ayurvedic and Unani Drug was also introduced in section 3 of the Drug Act. However, it is not necessary to go into it because the offence was alleged to have been committed in July, 1962 and the provisions of the Drugs Act, as it existed at that time, would be applicable to this case. 8. However, it is not necessary to go into it because the offence was alleged to have been committed in July, 1962 and the provisions of the Drugs Act, as it existed at that time, would be applicable to this case. 8. The crucial point for consideration is whether Youbraj plaster is a preparation strictly according to Ayurvedic or Unani system of medicine According to the revisionist, Alkaloids are not used according to the Unani and Ayurvedic system. In this case the prosecution had led absolutely no evidence to prove that it was not prepared according to Unani and Ayurvedic system or it could not be a Unani or Ayurvedic preparation. On the other hand the revisionist had examined two witnesses, namely, Hakim Jamiul Ahmad IMS (D.W. 3). He was a physician incharge of Unani Dispensary Jame-a-Tibya and also a Lecturer in the Jame-a-Tibya College. He gave out that equivalent of Youbraj in English is Belladona. He also gave out the prescription for preparing Youbraj Plaster. Hakim Jagdish Chandra Sharma (D.W. 4) was a lecturer in the same college and he gave out that Youbraj is used as an Ayurvedic and Unani medicine and plaster is also prepared from it. According to him also, its English equivalent is Belladona. Certain books also appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned lower appellate court to show that Youbraj is described as Belladona There is absolutely no reason why the statements of these two witnesses should not have been relied upon. They not only gave the prescription of Youbraj Plaster but also gave out that this preparation is purely Unani and Ayurvedic. In these circumstances the Youbraj Plaster was exempt from the operation of the Drugs Act and no licence was required for its sale in 1962. No evidence was brought on the record to show that the sample taken was of sub standard quality even according to the Unani and Ayurvedic system. The learned counsel for the revisionist gives out that after the definition of Ayurvedic and Unani drug was introduced in the Drugs Act it became necessary to obtain licence for its preparation. According to him, no licence was required for the Youbraj Plaster prior to this amendment but after it licence became necessary and the State has granted licence to the revisionist for the same product. According to him, no licence was required for the Youbraj Plaster prior to this amendment but after it licence became necessary and the State has granted licence to the revisionist for the same product. It would be ridiculous to prosecute him for sale of this product in 1962 when oo licence was necessary and to grant licence for the sale of the same preparation after 1964. I am, therefore, in judgment that in 1962 the revisionist did not contravene any provision of the Drugs Act and was not liable to be prosecuted. The conviction of the revisionist is to be set aside for one more reason. The provisions of the Drugs Act require that copy of the report of the Public Analyst should be given to the accused but in the instant case no copy was given to him. On the other hand copy was given to Chintainani Vaidya who was neither arrayed as an accused nor had any concern with the revisionist firm. The said Chintamani Vaidya, as a matter of fact, had appeared as a prosecution witness. For the reasons no useful purpose can be served by sending the revision back to the trial court for fresh trial. 9. Therefore, the revision application is allowed and the revisionists conviction under section 27 of the Drugs Act and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside. The fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to him.