K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment in C. C. No. 385 of 1996 on the file of ii Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, bhimavaram, dated 13-07-1999 wherein both the accused were acquitted for the charges under Section 27 (B) (ii) for the contravention of the provisions under Section 18 (c) 22 (3) and 22 (1) (cea) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short the Act ). ( 2 ) THE brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be delineated as follows: on 22-12-1993, Drugs Inspector (P. W. 1) inspected the nursing home of accused No. 1 and found certain contraventions under the act, and therefore, he drafted an observation report in the presence of the mediators and a copy of the same was served on accused no. 1. Further a copy was also sent to the assistant Director, Drugs Control administration, Rajahmundry, who in turn sent Ex. P-3 show cause notice dt. 01-01-1994 to accused No. 1 for which accused No. 1 gave a reply stating that he was exempted to obtain a licence for selling the drugs. Again on the directions of the Assistant Director, p. W. 1 inspected the dispensary of accused no. 1 on 28-04-1994 and noticed non- maintenance of certain registers. Again on 07-06-1996 P. W. 1 along with P. Ws. 2 to 5 conducted test purchase under panchanama and confirmed the sale of certain drugs by accused No. 2 in accused No. 1 s dispensary and noticed that the accused failed to produce any registers required to be maintained as per Schedule-K of Clause 5 (2) (c) (e) of the act, therefore the accused are liable for punishment. ( 3 ) THE accused were examined under section251 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure for the allegations levelled against them, which were denied by them. ( 4 ) TO substantiate the case of prosecution, p. Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. P-1 to p-34 were marked. On behalf of the accused ex. D-1 was marked. ( 3 ) THE accused were examined under section251 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure for the allegations levelled against them, which were denied by them. ( 4 ) TO substantiate the case of prosecution, p. Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. P-1 to p-34 were marked. On behalf of the accused ex. D-1 was marked. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that P. W. 1 failed to show issue any notice to the accused No. 1 requiring him to produce the registers and that at the time of examination under Section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure, the accused produced the bills relating to purchase of medicines and registers, and that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 is interested, and therefore acquitted the accused. ( 6 ) AS against the said order of acquittal of the accused, the present appeal is filed by the state. ( 7 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5 is very clear that accused No. 2 was not maintaining the registers as required under schedule-K of the Act though he is not required under Schedule-K of the Act to obtain any licence to sell the drugs and, therefore, the learned Magistrate committed an error in not placing reliance on the evidence of P. Ws. l to 4 and panchanamas prepared by P. W. 1 in the presence of mediators and accordingly she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. ( 8 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the accused contended that P. W. 1 did not give any notice to the accused No. l to produce registers under which he was maintaining the particulars of drugs as per schedule-K of the Act and except the interested testimony of P. Ws. 1 to 5 there is no independent evidence, to corroborate their evidence, that though some persons were present at the time of inspection by P. W. 1 none was examined and that the accused produced all the registers at the time of his examination and therefore the accused have not violated any provisions especially schedule-K of the Act and after considering all these aspects the learned Magistrate came to the right conclusion in acquitting the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. ( 9 ) THIS being an appeal against an order of acquittal, the powers of this Court are circumscribed and unless the findings of the learned Magistrate are found to be perverse or contrary to law, normally this Court will not interfere with the order of acquittal. ( 10 ) IT is an admitted fact that the accused no. 1 is running a nursing home in bhimavaram Town. Accused No. 2 was found selling certain medicines on prescriptions given by accused No. 1. It is admitted by P. W. 1 that the registered medical practitioners are exempted from possessing licence under Section 18 (c) of the Act subject to certain conditions mentioned in Schedule- k of the Rules. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 also admitted in the cross- examination that he did not issue any specific notice on accused to produce the registers, which they have to maintain. ( 12 ) FURTHERMORE, the inspection in question was taken place after giving an explanation by accused No. 1 under Ex. P-5 dated 09-01-1994. By that date the accused no. 1 along with others filed a writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 202117 of 1993 and obtained interim orders in W. P. M. P. No. 14561 of 1993 dated 30-12-1993, which read as follows:"pending further orders, there shall be stay of prosecution on the ground of not possessing licence against the petitioners under the provisions of Drugs and cosmetics Act subject to the condition that the petitioners maintain the Registers and Forms as per the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules and the same shall be open for inspection by the 2nd respondent. It is also open to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action if the preparation and dispensing of the medicines and drugs do not confirm to the required specifications or likely to prove injurious to health". ( 13 ) AS per the above order, it is open for the second respondent in the above W. P. to inspect the premises of the accused and take appropriate action if the drugs do not conform to the required specifications or standards or likely to cause injurious to health. Therefore, the Assistant Director, drugs Control Administration, rajahmundry, is the proper person to visit the hospital of accused No. 1 and conduct enquiry or search to find out whether accused no. Therefore, the Assistant Director, drugs Control Administration, rajahmundry, is the proper person to visit the hospital of accused No. 1 and conduct enquiry or search to find out whether accused no. 1 was actually maintaining any registers or not for the drugs he was in possession. In pursuance of the said direction, the Assistant director, Rajahmundry, gave directions to p. Ws. 1 and 3 to inspect the premises of accused No. 1, who accordingly inspected the same. They have not filed any document to show that they were authorised by the assistant Director, Drugs Control administration, Rajahmundry, to inspect the clinic of accused No. 1 at Bhimavaram. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, p. W. 1 ought to have served a notice on accused No. l to produce the bills and registers, which he was maintaining as per schedule-K of the Act, but he did not give any such notice. ( 14 ) AT the time of examination, accused no. 1 produced all the bills and registers, which he was supposed to maintain as per schedule-K of the Act. If really P. W. 1 got issued any notice, then there was possibility for accused No. 1 to produce those bills and registers, which are required to be maintained under the provisions of the Act. ( 15 ) P. WS. 4 and 5 are the mediators said to be present at the time of purchasing of medicines from the clinic of accused No. 1. Even P. W. 4 admitted that accused No. 1 s nursing home was maintaining some registers. Furthermore, the mediators report did not disclose as to the specific records that are required to be produced by accused no. l. ( 16 ) SO in view of the above infirmities the learned Magistrate rightly rejected the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5 and held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. ( 17 ) IN the absence of any legal infirmity or perverse finding by the learned Magistrate, this Court will not interfere with the impugned judgment. ( 18 ) IN the result, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. ( 19 ) THIS criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.