JUDGMENT The respondent was tried before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai for violation of Section 18 (c) punishable under Section 27 (b) (ii) and for the violation of Section 18 (A) punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short the Act). The allegation against the respondent is that on 15-4-93 when his premises was searched by the Drug Inspector, P.W.1, he was found in possession of certain Allopathic drugs and that he has stocked them for sale. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent on two grounds, namely. (1) The statement given by the accused to the Drug Inspector is inadmissible and (2) The prosecution did not succeed in establishing that the drugs found in the house of the respondent were stocked for the purpose of sale. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the evidence of the Drug Inspector coupled with EX.P-7. Form 95, show that the respondent has committed the offences under Sec. 18 (c) as well as under Section 18 (A) of the Act. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the materials. 3. In the complaint, it is stated that the accused was stocking drugs for distribution and was practicing as a doctor using the drugs and he did not have any licence. Let me first find out whether the respondent has stocked the drugs in his house for distribution or sale. The complaint itself states that the respondent was a medical practitioner though he had no licence to practice in Allopathy, but was only licensed to practice in Siddha and A yurveda, and it is the case of the complainant, the Drug Inspector, that the respondent being a practitioner in Siddha and A yurveda, was also practicing/Allopathy by dispensing Allopathic drugs to the patients. When the prosecution itself has a definite case that the respondent is a practitioner, then it is for the prosecution to establish further that the drugs noted in Ex.P-7, which were seized were stocked by the respondent for the purpose of distribution or sale. The prosecution has not let in any evidence, but on the contrary had come out with a case that the accused was practising in Allopathic Medicines also. The prosecution has not let in any evidence, but on the contrary had come out with a case that the accused was practising in Allopathic Medicines also. Merely because some Allopathic medicines were seized from the house of the accused, where he was running a clinic, this Court cannot draw an inference that he has kept the Allopathic medicines for distribution or sale especially when he was a medical practitioner. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, justified in coming to the conclusion that no offence under Section 18 (c) is made out against the accused. 4. The words "stock or exhibit for sale" found under Section 18 (c) of the Act, are indivisible and the person stocking a drug cannot be held guilty unless he does so far sale. As stated earlier, in the present case, there is no evidence to show that the respondent has stocked the medicines, which he had in his possession, for the purpose of sale and to make out an offence under Sec. 18 (c) of the Act, the prosecution must also prove that they were stocked and exhibited for sale and out merely that they were stocked. Mere stock by itself is not an offence under Sec. 18 (c) unless these said stock is meant for sale or distribution, in the absence of any evidence that the respondent stocked the medicines in his house for distribution or sale, the trial Judge was justified in acquitting him under Sec. 18 (c) of the Act. 5. Once it is held that the offence under Section 18 (c) of the Act is not made out, then the other offence under Section 18 (A) will have to automatically go, as a person, under Section 18 (A) can be prosecuted if he fails to give the details of the manufacturer of the drugs which had stocked them for sale or distribution. 6. The judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Orissa v. Janmejay Dinda (1998) 111 SCC 63 on which the learned Government Advocate relied on, will not apply to the facts of the case since in the case before the Supreme Court the medicines were seized from a nursing home, which had stocked them for sale; but whereas, the facts in this case disclose that some medicines were recovered from the house of the accused, who was a Doctor and who was practising in Siddha and Ayurveda. In this connection, it will be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in S. K. Amir v. State of Maharashtra (1974) IV SCC 209. The Supreme Court in the above judgment held that the plain meaning of the words stock in these provisions of the Act is to keep and the injunction of the law means no more than this and that no person shall keep for sale a misbranded drug or a drug in respect of which a valid licence is not held and that if anyone keeps or carries a drug on his person in contravention of the terms of the Act and it is proved that the drug is kept or carried for sale, the act must fall within the mischief of the law under consideration and keeping for sale is of the essence of the matter but not the mode and the manner of keeping. It was further held that it must be proved that the stock is meant for sale. In Swantraj and others v. State of Maharashtra (1975) 111 SCC 322 the Supreme Court held that if an offence under Section 18 (c) is to be proved four questions have to be asked and they are: (1) Is it a drug? (2) If it is, is it stored is a place or is it in transit? (3) If it is stored in a place, is the storage for sale? (4) It is, a licence for that place half-way house, may be - is the only answer to a prosecution and what looms large, then whether storing is one for sale. When we pose those four questions in this case, the answer can only be in the negative I since even admittedly on the facts, the accused did not stock those medicines for sale as he was a Doctor dispensing medicines to his patients though he was licensed not to practice in Allopathy, but licensed to practice only in Siddha and Ayurveda. 7. As I have already held that the practitioner did not stock the medicines for exhibition or sale, he cannot be expected to give the names of the manufacturer. Therefore, he cannot also be convicted under Section 18 (A). 7. As I have already held that the practitioner did not stock the medicines for exhibition or sale, he cannot be expected to give the names of the manufacturer. Therefore, he cannot also be convicted under Section 18 (A). As I have held that he is not to be convicted, there is no need for me to go into the questions whether the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the confession statement given by the accused to the Drug Inspector. The appeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed.