JUDGMENT V.N. Varma, J. - This revision is directed against an order dated 21-6-73 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in a case under sections 18/27 Drugs Act. 2. The applicant is the proprietor of Messrs Sanjay Medical Stores at Allahabad. On 21-11-68 S. K. Pathak, the then Inspector of Drugs, collected a sample of the Colloidal calcium manufactured by Spa Pharma. Kanpur. One part of the sample was sent to Government Analyst, Uttar Pradesh, for analysis and report. On analysis it was found that it was not of standard quality and as such the applicant was said to have contravened the provisions of section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetic's Act. Accordingly, the then Inspector filed a complaint against the applicant. The complainant examined three witnesses, they were S.K. Pathak, the then Inspector, P. Kamal and S. C. Agarwal. The complainant also filed and proved a number of documents. 3. The statement of the applicant was recorded and he denied to have committed any offence as alleged. 4. The learned Magistrate went through the entire material on record and in a detailed judgment held that the complainant had failed to make out any prima facie case against the applicant. Accordingly, he discharged the applicant. The complainant felt aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Magistrate and went up in revision The revisional Court set aside the order discharging the applicant and remanded the case to the court below to decide it in accordance with law. The applicant has now court up in revision to this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the papers on record. It is not in dispute that the applicant is the proprietor of Messrs. Sanjay Medical Stores and sells medicines etc. It is also not in dispute that on 21-11-6S the Inspector of Drugs collected sample of Colloidal Calcium kept in sealed capsules from his shop. The applicant himself had not manufactured the disputed capsules of Colloidal Calcium. He had purchased the same from Messrs. B. P. Bhatia & Co. Birhana Road Kanpur. Messrs B. P. Bhatia & Co. had in their turn purchased the said capsules from M/s. Spa Pharma Kanpur. The applicant had conveyed these facts to the Inspector of Drugs at the time when the latter collected capsules of Colloidal Calcium by way of sample. He had purchased the same from Messrs. B. P. Bhatia & Co. Birhana Road Kanpur. Messrs B. P. Bhatia & Co. had in their turn purchased the said capsules from M/s. Spa Pharma Kanpur. The applicant had conveyed these facts to the Inspector of Drugs at the time when the latter collected capsules of Colloidal Calcium by way of sample. His contention is that if the disputed capsules of Colloidal Calcium turned oui to be sub-standard, he possibly could not be blamed and penalised for it. In this connection the learned counsel for the applicant drew my attention to section 19(3) of the Durgs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It reads as under : - "A person, not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of section 18 if he proves - (a) that he acquired the drug or cosmetic from a duly licenced manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof. (b) that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the drug or cosmetic in any way contravened the provisions of that section ; and (c) that the drug or cosmetic, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it". 6. Now what we have to see is whether or not the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 19(3). To start with, the first thing that the applicant has to prove is that he had acquired the disputed capsules of Colloidal Calcium from a duly licenced manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof. Both the courts below have held that the applicant had purchased the disputed capsules of Colloidal Calcium from Messrs B.P. Bhatia & Co., Kanpur which is admittedly a licenced distributor for selling the same. The next thing that he has to prove is that he did not know and could not possibly know that the Colloidal Calcium taken by way of sample from his shop was sub-standard. Admittedly, sealed capsules of Colloidal Calcium had been taken by the Inspector by way of sample. Those capsules the applicant had received directly from Messrs B. P. Bhatia & Co. Kanpur. On the invoice of purchase there was a warranty that these capsules contained standard quality of Colloidal Calcium. Admittedly, sealed capsules of Colloidal Calcium had been taken by the Inspector by way of sample. Those capsules the applicant had received directly from Messrs B. P. Bhatia & Co. Kanpur. On the invoice of purchase there was a warranty that these capsules contained standard quality of Colloidal Calcium. The applicant had no reason to doubt the correctness of this warranty. Therefore, as the things stood, the applicant possibly could not have known that Colloidal Calcium kept in capsules was sub-standard. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the applicant in the absence of any evidence led by him could not be said to have established that he did not know that the disputed Colloidal Calcium with him was not sub-standard. I am afraid I cannot persuade myself to agree with this view of the learned Sessions Judge. What evidence the applicant could have led to establish that the did not know that Colloidal Calcium kept in the capsules was not sub-standard. It is only the surrounding circumstances emerging from the documents on record that will speak whether the applicant had or had not knowledge of the fact that the drug kept in the capsules was sub-standard. Here all the proved circumstances definitely go to show that the applicant did not know and could not with reasonable diligence know that the drug in question in any way contravened the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The last thing that the applicant was to establish was that the disputed capsules of Colloidal Calcium had been properly stored by him and they remained in the same state in which he had acquired them. The applicant had staled in his statement that he had kept the capsules in question at his shop and it was from his shop that they had been taken by the Drugs Inspector by way of sample. It is nobody's case that these capsules had to be kept at any particular temperature. In the circumstances, the only inference that we can draw is that the applicant had properly stored those capsules. 7. Thus, from a perusal of what I have mentioned above it is clear that the applicant had succeeded in establishing that he was entitled to the benefit of section 19(f) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. In the circumstances, the only inference that we can draw is that the applicant had properly stored those capsules. 7. Thus, from a perusal of what I have mentioned above it is clear that the applicant had succeeded in establishing that he was entitled to the benefit of section 19(f) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, absolutely correct in holding that prima facie no case against the applicant under sections 18/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act had been made out. The learned Sessions Judge was not correct in taking a view contrary to what the learned Magistrate had taken. 8. In the result, I allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 21-6-73 The order passed by the learned Magistrate is confirmed.