JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - The petitioner was convicted under Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short the Act) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, vide judgment dated January 17, 1992. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 27(b)(ii), and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 27(d) of the Act, by order dated January 21, 1992 passed by the learned C.J.M. His appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment dated July 8, 1992. The petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence, as mentioned above, by filing the present revision petition. 2. The premises of the petitioner, who is a Registered Medical Practitioner, were inspected by the Drugs Inspector Shri P.P. Singh on March 19, 1985, in the company of his peon Shri Ami Chand. He was found to be in possession of 12 types of allopathic drugs in the shop, which he was not authorised to possess. The Drugs Inspector disclosed his identity. The petitioner could not disclose the source of purchase of the drugs kept by him. He also could not show the purchase bills of the said drugs. The Drugs Inspector prepared a list of all the drugs on form 15 and a copy of form 15 was handed over to the petitioner. He also instructed the accused not to dispose of the drugs for 14 days. On March 25, 1985 a show cause notice was served upon the accused by the Chief Medical Officer, Narnaul, to which reply was filed by the petitioner on April 1, 1985 and sent a photo copy of the registration certificate to him. On April 2, 1985, Shri P.P. Singh, Drugs Inspector again inspected the premises of the petitioner, along with Dr. Janak Raj Singhal, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Mohindergarh and Dr. Siri Chand, Ayurvedic Medical Officer, Incharge, Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Duloth Ahir. At that time the petitioner was found to be in possession 10 types of allopathic drugs. This time again the petitioner did not produce the purchase bill. The said drugs were duly seized by the Drugs Inspector in the presence of afore-mentioned Dr. Janak Raj Singhal and Dr. Siri Chand. At that time the petitioner was found to be in possession 10 types of allopathic drugs. This time again the petitioner did not produce the purchase bill. The said drugs were duly seized by the Drugs Inspector in the presence of afore-mentioned Dr. Janak Raj Singhal and Dr. Siri Chand. The petitioner was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul. The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the petitioner of the offence with regard to the raid conducted by the Drugs Inspector on March 19, 1985 on the ground that no independent witness was joined in the raid, which was a pre-requisite under the law for conducting a raid. However, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, for the offence with regard to the raid conducted on April 2, 1985 on the ground that the Drugs Inspector had joined Dr. Janak Raj Singhal, Medical Officer, General Hospital. Mohindergarh, and Dr. Siri Chand, Ayurvedic Medical Officer, Incharge, Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Duloth Ahir, at the time of the raid. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment dated July 8, 1992. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file. 4. The primary contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Drug Inspector had committed a glaring error in not joining two independent witnesses from the locality at the time of the second raid even. The witnesses joined by the Drug Inspector cannot be said to be independent witnesses by any stretch of imagination. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Courts below are illegal. 5. I find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The witnesses joined by the Drug Inspector cannot be said to be independent witnesses by any stretch of imagination. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Courts below are illegal. 5. I find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is to the following effect :- "Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do." According to the afore-quoted provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, joining of two independent witnesses from the locality is a pre-requisite before conducting raid in the premises. In case the persons from the locality are not available or willing to join the raid, then independent persons from a nearby locality are to be joined. But in the present case, the Drugs Inspector had joined Dr. Janak Raj Singhal, who is the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Mohindergarh; and Dr. Siri Chand, who is Incharge of Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Duloth Ahir, at the time of raid. These two witnesses, who belong to the same department, cannot be said to be independent witnesses. Moreover, they are not residents of the locality, where the premises of the petitioner were situated. The essential ingredient of Section 100(4) of the Code of criminal Procedure is the joining of two independent and respectable witnesses from the locality, which has not been done by the Drugs Inspector. The afore-mentioned two witnesses, who belong to the same department, cannot be said to be independent by any stretch of imagination. Thus, even the raid conducted by the Drugs Inspector of the premises of the petitioner on April 2, 1985, was not in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. In the light of the above discussion, I allow the petition and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below vide the impugned judgments. The petitioner is on bail. 6. In the light of the above discussion, I allow the petition and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below vide the impugned judgments. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged forthwith. Petition allowed.