This revision petition is against the judgment and order pissed by the Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati in Criminal Appeal No. 13 (K-4) of 1975 maintaining the judgment, conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati in Case No. 156 C of 1974 convicting the accused petitioner under section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for violating the provisions of Section 18(C) of the Act and sentenced him to R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default R.I. for three months. The prosecution case is that accused-petiti­oner was Director-cum-Proprietor of M/s. Standard Homeo Laboratory at Dispur and manufactured homeo drugs for sale without obtaining licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for short, the Act). Inspector of Diugs- Rabindra Kumar Barua paid a visit to the premises of the accused and seized as many as 45 varieties of manufactured drugs and materials from the said laboratory under seizure list Ext.6 and 38. After that the Inspector of Drugs submitted a report Ext.39 against the accused for violation of the provisions of section 18(c) of the Act. On complaint the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and in the trial the aforesaid conviction and sentence were passed against him. Thereafter the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge who upheld the conviction and sentence. Hence this petition. 2. Section 18 of the Act prohibits manufacture and sale of certain drugs without licence. A proviso to this section says that nothing in this section shall apply to the manufacture subject to prescribed conditions of small quantities of any drug for the purpose of examination, test or analysis. Section 27 of the Act is the penal provision. 3. It has been argued on behalf of the accused petitioner that there has been no finding of sale or stock for sale on behalf of the learned trial court; but the learned Sessions Judge in appeal came to the finding that the accused manufactured those articles of homeopathic medicine for sale on the basis of advertisements of such medicines in the newspaper (Assam Tribune) which were markad Ext. 1 to 4 in the trial court. Ext. 1 advertisement reads "Medicines and injections promptly curing fatal bascilliary dysentry are available by now. Some quantity will be supplied to the doctors at free of cost. Postage and packing will only be charged," Ext. 2 reads the same thing. 1 to 4 in the trial court. Ext. 1 advertisement reads "Medicines and injections promptly curing fatal bascilliary dysentry are available by now. Some quantity will be supplied to the doctors at free of cost. Postage and packing will only be charged," Ext. 2 reads the same thing. Ext. 3 and 4 read "Medicines and injections promptly curing tonsil and tonsillitis are available by now, Doctors and pharmacists will please contact." Learned appellate court also relied on a price list Ext. 48 which Relates to the month of September, 1973 published by M/s. Standard Homao Laboratory, Dispur, Gauhati of which the accused-petitioner is the Director-cum-Proprietor. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no nexus has been made out by evidence between the price list Ext. 48 and the seized items of the medicine from the premises of the accused-petitioner. It is found tint there is no evidence to establish such connection. Moreover it is found that the advertisements Ext. 1 to 4 wire published on behalf of Independent Medical Research institution of India (Homeopathic), Dispur, Gauhati, Assam. There is no evidence to show that such advertisements were published by or on behalf of the accused petitioner or on behalf of his Laboratory/manufacturing concern. So the only piece of evidence that remains to make the petitioner criminally liable in this case for alleged manufacture for sale is the price list said above which is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused petitioner beyond reasonble doubt. 4. The defence case is that the accused is a research scholar in homeopathic medicine and he is doing research work in homeopathic medicine and therefore no licence is required as per provisions of the law in this behalf. It is the further case of the accused that he kept those medicines or drugs for the purpose of research work. It is also the defence case that the accused has been in connection with the Central Health Department, Government of India in connection with his research work and that he passes his findings of research to the Central Health Department. This is not denied on behalf of the prosecution. Both the learned courts below failed to assess the evidence of the accused-petitioner who put himself in the Witness Box as a defence witness. There is no finding that the evidence of the accused petitioner is unworthy of acceptance. This is not denied on behalf of the prosecution. Both the learned courts below failed to assess the evidence of the accused-petitioner who put himself in the Witness Box as a defence witness. There is no finding that the evidence of the accused petitioner is unworthy of acceptance. For all those reasons cited above the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is the principle of law that in cases like the present are the evidence on record should be thoroughly scanned and properly appreciated in order to come to the finding of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. But the same has not been done in the present case by the courts below. As said before I find there is reasonable doubt as regards whether the seized items of medicines were stocked or kept in the premises of the accused petitioner for sale or for any other commercial purpose. 4. In view of what has been stated above, I find that the orders of conviction and sentence should be reversed. The orders of the learned Courts below are hereby set aside and the accused is entitled to acquittal by way of benefit of doubt. 5. The result is that the petition is allowed. The con­viction and sentence are set aside and the accused-petitioner in acquitted. The bail band is discharged.