Judgment : Per P. MURGESEN, J. 1. This Revision is directed against the order in Cr. M.P. No. 5821 of 2003 in S.T.C. No. 5209 of 2003 dated 27.9.2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-IV, Tirunelveli. 2. The petitioners have proper licence for doing business as wholesale dealer of drugs. The respondent herein has claimed that the petitioners committed offence under Section 18 (a)(vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Rule 65(17) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 punishable under Section 27(3) of the Act. 3. The case of the petitioners is that manufacturers of blood bags sold blood bags to them and the petitioners in turn sold the same to the licenced dealer viz., Vigra Surgica;ls, Tirunel-veli, under proper bills. The petitioners have proper licence to sell the blood bags and they have not violated any provisions of law under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 4. The petitioners have violated the legendary cautions incorporated in the label affixed in the blood bags i. e., “to be sold to licensed blood bank only”. The petitioners have not sold the blood bags to any blood banks even as per their averments, but they have sold the blood bags to only licensed drug dealer. Sale of cautioned drugs of this nature between the manufacturer and the wholesale drug dealer is neither prohibited under the Drugs Act or Rules, but the prohibition is of such sale to unlicensed blood banks only. The caution printed in the label is to be adhered to only at the last sales point. The law should not be interpreted or construed in a literary manner. 5. The petitioners have duly replied to the show cause notice issued by the complainant. The petitioners have not violated either the provisions of the Act or the Rules. There is no prima facie case against the petitioners and the petitioners are entitled for a discharge even in summons cases under Section 204, Cr. P.C. as per the legal decision reported in 1996 Crl. Report 897 (Madras). Point for determination: “Whether the revision is maintainable e” Point: The petitioners purchased blood bags from the manufacturer and sold the same to the duly licensed dealer viz., Vigra Surgicals. They sold 300 blood bags to the said Surgicals, Tirunelveli. P.C. as per the legal decision reported in 1996 Crl. Report 897 (Madras). Point for determination: “Whether the revision is maintainable e” Point: The petitioners purchased blood bags from the manufacturer and sold the same to the duly licensed dealer viz., Vigra Surgicals. They sold 300 blood bags to the said Surgicals, Tirunelveli. During the course of Inspection on 17.7.2001 at Vigra Surgicals, it came to be known by the Authority that they had purchased blood bags from the complainant. Then on the basis of the order from the Assistant Director, on 23.7.2001, the complainant along with other Drugs Inspectors visited Ideal Diagnostics (P) Ltd.,situated at 157, South Masi street,Madurai-1 and found that Vigra Surgicals do not posses any blood bag licence. Therefore, on 23.8.2001, the complainant issued show cause notice to the petitioners for violation of Rules 65 (17) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The petitioner sent reply on 27.8.2001 admitting that the supply of blood bags to Vigra Surgicals and also enclosed invoice. That report was sent to the Drug control and action was initiated against the petitioners.` 6. Discharge petition was filed by the petitioner before learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Tirunelveli and the same was dismissed. 7. Challenging the order of dismissal, the present revision has been filed by the petitioners. 8. No doubt the petitioners sold 300 blood bags to Vigra Surgicals and the label in the blood bags shows, to be sold to licensed blood banks only. In the inspection, it was admitted by the petitioners that they sold blood bags to Vigra Surgicals. the learned counsel would contend that they are entitled to sell blood bags to another dealer and there is no bar to sell the blood bags to the another dealer. The sale cannot be interpreted in the literary manner and it was made under good faith. To strengthen his case, he relied on Section 37 of the Act and argued that sale was made in a good faith to save the lives of the many patients. so, he cannot be charged under the Cosmetics Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in , AIR 2001 SC 2374 : 2001 (2) SCC 171 : (2001) MLJ (Crl) 377 and Brijendra Singh v. State of U. P. , AIR 1981 S.C 636 , and argued that act done in good faith cannot be turned as crime. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in , AIR 2001 SC 2374 : 2001 (2) SCC 171 : (2001) MLJ (Crl) 377 and Brijendra Singh v. State of U. P. , AIR 1981 S.C 636 , and argued that act done in good faith cannot be turned as crime. In the above said case, good faith has been defined as follows: “The expression ‘good faith‘ has not been defined in the Ceiling Act. Although the meaning of “good faith‘ may vary in the context of different statutes, subjects situations, honest intent free from taint of fraud or fraudulent design, is a constant element of its connotation. Even so, the quality and quantity of the honesty requisite for constituting ‘good faith‘ is conditioned by the context and object the statute in which this term is employed. It is a cardinal canon of construction and expression which has no uniform precisely fixed meaning, takes its colour and content from the context.” 9. But the question of good faith can be established only at the time of trial. The question of violation of the Drugs Act and the claim of the accused that he sold blood bags to save the life of the victims can be proved at the time of trial. So it cannot be presumed that his act is bona fide. At this stage, the Court cannot analyse, assess and decide the materials placed before it to arrive at a conclusion. 10. The learned Trial Judge has observed that there is prima facie case against the petitioners and the petitioners cannot be discharged before trial. This Court fully agreed with the view expressed by the Trial Court. I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate and this Revision is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, this Revision is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Tirunelveli in Cr. M.P. No. 5821 of 2003 in S.T.C. No. 5209 of 2003 dated 27.9.2004 is confirmed.