ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) CONVICTION for commission of the offences punishable under Ss. 27 (b) (ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short, 'the Act') by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Jaleswar (in short, 'jmfc'), and confirmation thereof by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasoo is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. For such conviction, sentence of simple imprisonment for one year, and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default sentence of three months, and sentence of simple imprisonment for one month respectively, as imposed by the learned JMFC was confirmed in appeal. ( 2 ) BACKGROUND facts which led to the trial of the accused-petitioner, and consequentially his conviction are (essentially) as follows :on 7-8-1986 Shri Bipin Behari Panda, Drugs Inspector (P. W. 1) accompanied by the Deputy Drugs Controller Shri Krutihas Raj (P. W. 2) and the Assistant Drugs Controller Shri Bimal Kanta Mohanty (P. W. 3) Inspected the nursing home in the name and style 'kalicharan Poli Clinic' which was situated at Nayabazar, Jaleswar town. During inspection it was found that Janmejaya Dinda (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') had stocked medicines which were exposed for sale in two Almirahs in the front room of the said Clinic. After disclosing their identity, they made the search in the clinic. Before entering into the nursing home (Clinic), they gave their search to the accused and searched the nursing home. During search they found that the accused had exhibited medicines for sale without licence, and seized 22 items of drugs and some pamphlets. The accused also failed to produce purchase invoices in respect of the seized drugs and to indicate the source of purchase. A complaint under S. 22 of the Act was lodged in the Court of learned JMFC alleging inter alia contravention of provisions of the Act thereby attracting punishment under Ss. 27 (b) (ii), 27 (d) and 28-A of the Act. Charge was framed against the accused and he faced trial. ( 3 ) THE accused took the plea that though he was operating the nursing home, same was used by the local doctors for the purpose of keeping emergency patients, and he was obtaining rent from the patients. There was never any stock of medicines much less exhibited for sale. Charge was framed against the accused and he faced trial. ( 3 ) THE accused took the plea that though he was operating the nursing home, same was used by the local doctors for the purpose of keeping emergency patients, and he was obtaining rent from the patients. There was never any stock of medicines much less exhibited for sale. He also submitted that a case was falsely foisted on the basis of signatures taken on six blank papers which were obtained by threat. Four witnesses were examined to further the accused's plea. ( 4 ) ON consideration of the materials on record, the learned JMFC found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid which were affirmed in appeal. ( 5 ) IN support of the revision application it has been pleaded that there was no material to establish seizure of articles and there were noticeable discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The Courts below should have accepted the version of D. Ws. 1 to 4. It was submitted that the permission that was granted, to launch the prosecution reflected non-application of mind. It was merely a signature on the dotted line. The learned counsel for State on the other hand supported the judgements of the Courts below. ( 6 ) THE Act is a social statute which intends to check the evil of adulteration in life saving drugs and other medicines. S. 27 provides for punishment in a case where any person either himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes, without a valid licence as required under clause (c) of S. 18 of the Act. Section 18 deals with prohibition of manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics. Clause (c) provides that no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf shall manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell or stock or exhibit or offer for sale, or distribute any drugs, or cosmetic, except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under Chapter IV. The evidence of witnesses clearly establishes that the drugs are in stock and exhibited for sale. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the conclusion of the Courts below finding culpability of the accused. The evidence of witnesses clearly establishes that the drugs are in stock and exhibited for sale. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the conclusion of the Courts below finding culpability of the accused. Sub-Sec. (2) of S. 12 deals with powers of the Inspector which may be exercised by an Inspector and the duties to be performed by him. Rule 52 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (in short, 'the Rules') deals with the duties of Inspectors specially authorised to inspect the manufacture of drugs. Sub-rule (5) thereof deals with the power to institute prosecutions in respect of breaches of the Act and Rules thereunder in respect of contraventions relating to manufacture of drugs. Similarly sub-rule (5) of Rule 51 deals with powers of Inspectors in respect of premises licensed for the sale of drugs. Vulnerability is attached to the approval of the Drugs Controller of the prosecution report. It is stated that the same is in the nature of sanction and should show application of mind. The plea is clearly untenable. Neither the Act nor the Rules stipulate any sanction or even consent of the Drugs Controller for launching ( 7 ) THE fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is that a Court trying a case, has necessarily to reconsider the plea put forward by the accused and examine the materials that are placed before it by the accused or the materials that the available in the case put forward by the prosecution itself which will be favourable to the accused and determine the probabilities and the circumstances relied on by the accused before upholding the case of the prosecution. In order to sustain a conviction under S. 27 (b) (ii), it must not only be proved that the accused has kept the medicines without licence, but it must also be proved that they have been kept for selling the same. It has to be established affirmatively that the stock is for the purpose of sale or for distributing the same to customers. In view of the wordings of S. 18 (c), it must be proved affirmatively that the stocking of the medicine must be for sale. Stocking of medicine alone is not sufficient to enter conviction for the offence under S. 27 (a) (2) of the Act. In view of the wordings of S. 18 (c), it must be proved affirmatively that the stocking of the medicine must be for sale. Stocking of medicine alone is not sufficient to enter conviction for the offence under S. 27 (a) (2) of the Act. The words used in S. 27, namely, 'manufacture for sale, sells' have a comma after each clause but there is no comma after the clause 'stocks or exhibits for sale'. Thus, the Section postulates three separate categories of cases; i. e. , (i) manufacture for sale; (ii) actual sale; and (iii) stocking or exhibiting for sale or distribution of any drugs. The absence of any comma after the word 'stocks' clearly indicates that the clause 'stocks or exhibits for sale' is one indivisible whole and it contemplates not merely stocking the drugs but stocking the drugs for the purpose of sale and unless all the ingredients of this category are satisfied, S. 27 of the Act would not be attracted. In Drugs Inspector, Palghat v. Elias M. Palal, AIR 1979 SC 564 (sic), the apex Court observed that the words used in S. 27, namely 'manufacture for sale, sells' have a coma after each clause but there is no comma after the clause 'stocks or exhibits for sale'. Thus, the Section postulates three separate categories of cases and no other. ON consideration of the evidence brought on record, the Courts below have concluded about guilt of the accused punishable under S. 27 of the Act. In view of the position of law, as analysed above, the conclusion does not need any interference. ( 8 ) SECTION 28 deals with penalty for non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer, etc. and it provides that who ever contravenes the provisions of S. 18-A or S. 24 shall be punishable with imprisonment. S. 18-A deals with disclosure of the name of the manufacturer, etc. It requires that every person, being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall, if so required, disclose to the Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic. S. 18-A deals with disclosure of the name of the manufacturer, etc. It requires that every person, being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall, if so required, disclose to the Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic. In order to attract application of S. 18-A, a person, who is either the manufacturer of the drug or cosmetic or agent for distribution thereof is required to disclose to the Inspector the name and address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the articles. If a person does not fall within either of the two categories, S. 18-A will have no application. Conviction has been made with reference to S. 18-A of the Act. ( 9 ) THE learned JMFC has held that the accused could not produce the source of purchase of the seized articles, and did not have a licence to carry on business. He observed that since the accused failed to furnish the address of the person from whom he had purchased the articles, Section 18-A is clearly attracted. The view was affirmed by the appellate Court. As analysed above, S. 18-A has application only if the person from whom requisite information is sought for is either the manufacturer or an agent for distribution. There is no material brought on record by the prosecution to show that the accused is either the manufacturer or the agent for distribution. In the absence of that, the conviction under S. 28 for contravention of S. 18-A does not arise. The trial was not held for contravention relatable to S. 24. In the circumstances, the conviction under S. 28 cannot be maintained. ( 10 ) THE residual question is the sentence. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the occurrence took place nearly eight years back, and therefore, there is scope for reduction in the sentence. According to learned counsel for State, considering nature of offence, no reduction is called for Considering long passage of time, and the nature of accusations, I feel custodial sentence for the period already undergone, with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months would suffice. The revision application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Order accordingly.