Judgment NARINDER SINGH RAO, J. 1. Dr. T. S. Bagga, a resident of Gobind Mitra Lane, Patna, the petitioner, stands convicted under Section 18 (a) (1) read with Section 27 (a) (1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred this petition in revision. 2. The petitioner was the proprietor of M/s. Havit Pharma, Patna, That firm was loan licensee of Ashoka Chemical Laboratory, Panta, of which Ram Swaroop Sinha, since acquitted, was the partner, and Sunil Kumar, since absconded, Manager. 3. The prosecution version, in brief, is that Sri P. C. Sinha, Inspector of Drugs, Ranchi, had collected some phials of co-citron drug from M/s Tropical Agency, Ranchi on 6-9-1966. That sample was tested in Bihar Drug Control Laboratory, Patna, on 29-4-1987 and quantity of Citrete in the same was found less than the quantity declared on the label. Consequently the prosecution was launched against the petitioner as also against the aforesaid Ram swaroop Sinha and Sunil Kumar. Ram Swaroop Sinha was acquitted, but Sunil Kumar remains absconding. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated. 4. Notice of this petition was duly served upon P. C. Sinha, the complainant, but he has not chosen to contest the same. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State, merit is found in this petition. 5. Illegality in the conduct of trial is writ large on the face of it. That has undoubtedly prejudiced the defence case. Charge against the petitioner in this case, instituted on the basis of a private complaint, wasi framed on 15-10-1980. Earlier thereto, the prosecution had not examined any witness. The charge could be framed after recording the evidence of the witnesses by the prosecution, if it was found that prima facie case was made out against the accused. Subsequent to framing of the charge, an opportunity was to be provided to the accused for his getting resummoned those prosecution witnesses, whom he wanted, for further cross-examination. However, because of non-examination of any prosecution witness earlier to framing charge, second opportunity of their cross-examination by the defence was denied to him. On this score alone, this petition deserves to succeed. 6. Even otherwise the prosecution case has to fail. However, because of non-examination of any prosecution witness earlier to framing charge, second opportunity of their cross-examination by the defence was denied to him. On this score alone, this petition deserves to succeed. 6. Even otherwise the prosecution case has to fail. Records speak, over which there is no dispute that the firm of the petitioner was a loan licensee of that of his co-accused Ram Swaroop Sinha and Sunil Kumar. The petitioner used to supply formula and material to the other firm for their manufacturing the drug in question. It was that firm (Ashoka Chemical Laboratory, Patna), and not that of the petitioner, which had supplied the drug to M/s Tropical Agency, Ranchi. If any drug was found to be adulterated, the responsibility was that of the suppliers. Therefore, Ram Swaroop Sinha, a partner of Ashoka Chemical Laboratory, Patna, and his Manager Sunil Kumar were also arrayed as accused in the case. Ram Swaroop Sinha has been acquitted and Sunil Kumar is absconding. No evidence is available on record to show that the drug in question was manufactured or supplied by the firm of the petitioner to M/s Troniral Agency, Ranchi. Some sort of enquiry was stated to have been conducted by Biswanath Prasad, P.W. for his supplying information to Drug Inspector at Ranchi with respect to the manufacture of the drug at Patna. Surprisingly no such person, who had supplied any incriminating information against the petitioner to Biswanath Prasad, P.W. was examined by the prosecution. Undoubtedly, material brought on record is insufficient for maintaining the conviction of the petitioner. 7. For reasons stated above, this petition succeeds and is hereby accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside. The petitioner is on bail. He is discharged from the liabilities of his bonds.