JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - State of Punjab has filed this appeal against acquittal to challenge the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar dated March 5, 1990 whereby Vinay Kumar Mahajan, respondent herein, was acquitted for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short the Act). 2. The Drugs Inspector had on May 28, 1985 received secret information and inspected the shop of shop of M/s Om Parkash Vinay Kumar Mahajan at Chock Imam Basir, Jalandhar. At the time of the inspection Vinay Kumar Mahajan, respondent herein, was present at the shop. The Inspector was accompanied by another Drugs Inspector, two Senior Medical Officers and a police party headed by Inspector Narinder Pal Singh. During the inspection one Nathu was also associated as a public witness. On the search of the shop it was found that the respondent had stocked a number of drugs, in respect of which he could not produce any licence or registration certificate. The respondent could not disclose the source from where the drugs had been acquired. The recovered drugs included 4x50 tablets of avil-50, allegedly manufactured by M/s Hoechest Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Bombay, 4x50 tablets of saridon, allegedly manufactured by M/s Roche Products Ltd. Bombay, 4x20 tablets of baralgan, allegedly manufactured by M/s. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Bombay and 4x50 tablets of analgin, allegedly manufactured by Alpine Industries, New Delhi. The remaining drugs at the shop were also seized. The fair price of the samples was also paid and the accused issued separate cash memos for the four drugs purchased. Recovery memo was prepared in Form 16 and attested by the witnesses. A show cause notice was sent to the firm on June 10, 1985. Reports of the Analyst were also obtained and it was revealed that avil-50 was not of standard quality as it did not have the active ingredients. Saridon sample was also tested and found to be not of standard quality because the active ingredients were missing. Similar were the reports in respect of baralgon and analgin. The analysis had been conducted by the Government Analyst and his report is dated July 3, 1985. 3. In the complaint the Drugs Inspector stated that the respondent had contravened the provisions of Sections 18(c) and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. Similar were the reports in respect of baralgon and analgin. The analysis had been conducted by the Government Analyst and his report is dated July 3, 1985. 3. In the complaint the Drugs Inspector stated that the respondent had contravened the provisions of Sections 18(c) and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. It was further pleaded that the respondent had stocked medicines which had been declared to be spurious by the Government Analyst and this constituted offence under Sections 27(b) and 27(c) read with Sections 18(a)(i), 17B and 17A of the Act. Furthermore, the respondent did not disclose the source of acquisition of the drugs and had contravened the provisions of Section 18-A and thereby committed an offence under Section 28 of the Act. 4. After the respondent put in appearance, he was charged under the various sections of the Act in respect of selling drugs without a licence, keeping drugs which were spurious and not disclosing the source from where the drugs had been acquired. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to the tried. The State examined seven witnesses. In this statement without oath under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the accused-respondent denied all the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded false implication. The version pleaded by the accused was that he was running a general merchandise shop, the drugs were neither stocked nor sold on his premises, the police had recovered the drugs from a godown and he had no connection with the drugs recovered or the said godown. 5. The learned trial Court accepted the argument of the defence counsel that the drugs had not been found in possession of the accused and were not meant for sale. It appears some prosecution witnesses and admitted in cross- examination that the drugs had been recovered from a godown. Furthermore, an argument advanced by the accused and accepted by the trial Court was that the date of manufacture and date of expiry had not been noted on the samples. Therefore, the drugs were discarded medicines which were not meant for sale and when tested these drugs would naturally not come up to the requisite standard. The accused was acquitted of charges. 6. In this appeal against acquittal it has been submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was wrongly discarded. Therefore, the drugs were discarded medicines which were not meant for sale and when tested these drugs would naturally not come up to the requisite standard. The accused was acquitted of charges. 6. In this appeal against acquittal it has been submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was wrongly discarded. There was evidence to the effect that a large quantity of drugs had been seized from the accused- respondent. Attention was drawn to From 17 addressed to the respondent intimating that the samples of drugs specified therein had been taken from the premises of M/s Om Parkash Vinay Kumar Mahajan. There were four Form 17s in respect of the four drugs and each had been counter-signed by Vinay Kumar Mahajan. Reference was also made to the four respective cash memos each counter-signed by Vinay Kumar Mahajan. Likewise Form 16 was prepared regarding the stock of drugs seized from the premises of Vinay Kumar Mahajan. Likewise Form 16 was prepared regarding the stock of drugs seized from the premises of Vinay Kumar Mahajan partner of M/s Om Parkash Vinay Kumar Mahajan. From 16 had also been counter-signed by Vinay Kumar Mahajan. Form 16 contained a list of nineteen drugs/medicines/injections. 7. In view of the fact that the ground on which the accused-respondent was acquitted appeared to be hollow since the recovery memos, cash memos and Forms 16 and 17 had been counter-signed by the accused-respondent, a detailed scrutiny of the case is necessary. Inspector Harbhajan Singh (PW 1) had raided the premises of the firm on the basis of secret information. The inspection was carried on May 28, 1985 and Inspector Harbhajan Singh was accompanied by Shri S.K. Bedi Drugs Inspector (PW 2), Dr. Jaswant Singh (PW 3), Dr. Mrs. Sudarshan Goel (PW 6) and Inspector Narinder Pal Singh of the Police. One Nathu Ram was also joined in the raiding party. The search of the shop, according to Inspector Harbhajan Singh (PW 1), revealed that a number of drugs were found stocked for sale and distribution. The accused/respondent was present at the time but could not produce any drugs licence or disclose the source from where the drugs had been acquired. Samples of avil-50, saridon, baralgan and analgin were recovered. Respective recovery memos were attested by Shri S.K. Bedi (PW 2) both the Senior Medical Officers, Inspector Narinder Pal Singh and Nathu Ram. The accused/respondent was present at the time but could not produce any drugs licence or disclose the source from where the drugs had been acquired. Samples of avil-50, saridon, baralgan and analgin were recovered. Respective recovery memos were attested by Shri S.K. Bedi (PW 2) both the Senior Medical Officers, Inspector Narinder Pal Singh and Nathu Ram. Recovery memos were also signed by the accused. A copy of the recovery memo in Form 16 was given to the accused. The price of sample tablets of the four drugs was paid in cash to the accused who prepared four separate cash memos. 8. The samples were sent for testing to Government Analyst, Chandigarh who reported that the drugs did not contain any of the drug which they were respectively supposed to contain eg. avil-50 tested negative for pheniramine maleate as it was found to contain zero mg per tablet against the claim of 45 mg per tablet. Likewise, saridon tested nil for paracetamol and caffeine, baralgan tested nil for analgin and analgin itself tested nil for the drug. The drugs recovered from the respondents possession were altogether fake, spurious and contained no medicine at all. For all we know they were the just tablets of chalk. 9. When Inspector Harbhajan Singh was cross-examined he stated that the firm known as M/s Om Parkash Vinay Kumar Mahajan was a general merchandise shop and a sign board was displayed at the premises to this effect. The shop was situated in a building owned by the Punjab Wakf Board. During the search the Inspector found no documentary evidence of a bill or a voucher regarding the purchase of drugs by the firm. The Inspector spent three and a half hours on the premises. The witness denied that the drugs were not recovered from the premises but from a godown situated at about 200-300 yds. away. 10. Similar was the evidence of the other witnesses. They too denied the suggestion that the drugs had not been recovered from the premises but had been brought from some other place by the raiding party. However, there was a stray line in the cross-examination of Dr. Mrs. Sudarshan Goel (PW 6) to the effect that some of the drugs were also found from the godown and she had also gone to the godown with the raiding party. However, there was a stray line in the cross-examination of Dr. Mrs. Sudarshan Goel (PW 6) to the effect that some of the drugs were also found from the godown and she had also gone to the godown with the raiding party. It seems that the trial Court made a mountain out of this mole-hill by laying completely misplaced reliance on this stray sentence and holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of the medicines for sale in a shop and that the medicines had been allegedly recovered from a godown. 11. The prosecution in this case had led documentary evidence of recovery memos signed by the respondent, cash memos signed by the respondent and Forms 16 and 17 also counter-signed by the respondent. This gave no scope for the trial Court to hold otherwise and find that the drugs had not bee recovered from the possession of the respondent or from the premises of the respondent. 12. The argument of the respondent that the opinion of the Government Analyst was unreliable because the strips did not contain the date of manufacture and the date of expiry is mischievously unscientific and curiously misleading. According to the Analyst the samples were completely spurious and did not contain even a grain of the compound stated to the main component of the respective drugs. Avil, saridon, baralgon and analgin are commonly used drugs and if the evidence of the Government Analyst is accepted, and there is no reason to hold otherwise, avil would not have succeeded in controlling allergy and saridon a headache. Neither a baralgon nor analgin would have acted as effective pain-killers. The respondent had been indulging in a scam of huge proportions. He had committed a crime against society by stocking for sale absolutely fake and spurious drugs and leading unwary purchasers to believe that their ailments would be cured if these drugs were taken by them. Such unscrupulous business men have no place in decent society. The trial Court had completely misinterpreted oral and documentary prosecution evidence. The judgment of the trial Court was perverse in the extreme. 13. In view of the above, the appeal against acquittal is accepted, the acquittal of the respondent is hereby set aside. Such unscrupulous business men have no place in decent society. The trial Court had completely misinterpreted oral and documentary prosecution evidence. The judgment of the trial Court was perverse in the extreme. 13. In view of the above, the appeal against acquittal is accepted, the acquittal of the respondent is hereby set aside. The respondent is found guilty of stocking drugs for sale without a valid license and had thereby contravened Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. He is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 (in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months). Secondly, the respondent is found guilty of stocking spurious drugs not covered by Section 27(a) and he thereby contravened the provisions of sections 18(a)(i), 17A and 17B read with Section 27(c) of the Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000.00 (in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months). Thirdly, the respondent is found guilty of not disclosing the source from where the drugs were acquired by him and has thereby contravened the provisions of Section 18A read Section 28 of the Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 (in default to undergo imprisonment for two months). 14. All sentences shall run concurrently. The respondent shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining sentence. Appeal allowed.