JUDGMENT: The Drug Inspector, the appellant herein, filed a complaint againstDr. Anuradha Ramnath, the respondent/accused, for the offence under Sec. 18(c)read with 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The case ended in acquittal.Hence, this appeal against acquittal. 2. The brief facts are as follows: “(a) The complainant, Sivapunniam (P.W. 1), the Drug Inspector, on 22.9.1995, inspected M/s.Mahalakshmi Pharama, Madurai, who is having a drug licence to deal with wholesale business. During inspection, it was found that they sold A.C.D. Solution to Dr.Anuradha Ramnath in violation of the licensing condition that it should be sold to the licensed blood bank only. (b) Based on the said particulars, P.W. 1 along with other Drug Inspector, inspected the Clinic of the accused, “Ramradha Nursing Home”, on 22.9.1995 at about 1.30 p.m. During inspection, it was found that 7 bottles of A.C.D. Solution, which is the raw material for manufacturing blood, were stocked. (c) The accused gave a statement that she purchased 67 bottles of A.C.D. Solution from Mahalakshmi Pharma and out of the 64 bottles, she used 57 bottles for mixing with the blood collected from the donors and administered the same to her patients for pre and post operative surgery. (d) Since the said Nursing Home does not have the licence to operate blood bank, a show cause notice was issued to the accused. Since the explanation given by the accused was not satisfactory, P.W.1, the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed a complaint against the accused for the offence under Sec. 18(c) read with 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.” 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.P-1 toP-8 were filed and M.Os. 1 and 2 were marked. During the questioning under Sec.313, Crl.P.C, the accused stated that she did not commit the offence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the materials, acquitted theaccused mainly on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the A.C.D.Solution was stocked for sale and as such, the accused is entitled to acquittal. 5. Challenging the said finding of acquittal, Mr.E. Raja, the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor, by referring about various provisions of the Actand reading out the relevant portions of the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 3 andEx.P-2 confession statement of the accused, would state that the finding given by the trial Court is wrong. 6. I heard Mr.A.V. Somasundaram, the learned counsel appearing for therespondent. 7. 6. I heard Mr.A.V. Somasundaram, the learned counsel appearing for therespondent. 7. Though several grounds have been urged by the respective partieswhile making an attempt to substantiate their pleas, I am of the view that theacquittal can be sustained on a short ground. 8. According to Ex.P-8 sanction, the prosecution was directed to belaunched under Sec. 18(c) read with 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act forhaving manufactured whole human blood without any valid drug licence. In thecomplaint filed by the appellant, it is stated that the accused, Dr. AnuradhaRamnath, purchased 64 bottles of A.C.D. Solution, which is meant only forlicensed blood bank, from Mahalakshmi Pharma and out of the said 64 bottles, sheblended whole human blood and transfused using 57 bottles of A.C.D. Solution,after manufacturing blood. 9. The charge framed by the trial Court would reveal that she wasaccused of having stocked the raw material for manufacturing blood and aftermanufacture, she sold or distributed the same to her patients for wrongful gain. 10. It may be true that 7 bottles of A.C.D. Solution were recoveredfrom the clinic run by the accused, but there is no material to show that withthat A.C.D. Solution, the blood was manufactured and sold or distributed to thepatients, in view of the fact that no attempt was made by the Drug Inspector toobtain statement from those patients in order to prove either sale ordistribution. 11. Furthermore, the accusation mentioned in the sanction, complaintand the charge is not consistent. 12. As laid down in the decisions in (1) Loganathan v. State, 1992M.L.J. (Crl.) 126; (2) Drug Inspector v. Elias V. Palal, 1987 M.L.J. (Crl)334; (3) Sanat Kumar Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1984 Crl.L.J. 931 and(4) Mohd. Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 564, the merepossession of drugs without the evidence to show that they were stocked for saleor distribution may not attract the relevant penal Section. 13. As noted above, the prosecution has relied upon Ex.P-2 confessionstatement, which has been subsequently retracted by the accused in Ex.P-7 reply. 14. Under those circumstances, merely on the basis of Ex.P-2confession statement, it cannot be said that the offence alleged against theaccused is proved. Therefore, the acquittal is liable to be sustained. 15. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.