Judgment :- 1. This Criminal Revision filed to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.109 of 2004 dated 13.04.2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is as follow:- 2. P.W.1 is Drug Inspector. He inspected the nursing home run by the accused in Nagercoil, under the authorisation by the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.313, dated 23.09.2003, Ex.P.1. On 03.10.2003 at about 10.30 a.m. P.W.1 and three other Pharmacists proceeded to Sri Ganesh Pharmacy in Nagercoil, where the accused/doctor was present at the time of inspection in a separate room in the nursing home and various medicines were stocked in almyraa for sales to the patients. P.W.1 took samples of tablets by name Bedson and Synthotil Oxytocin Inj. I.P which are injections and recovered them by preparation of Form-17 as per procedure. He gave sample number, date and obtained signature from the accused and also sealed it. Out of two portions, one portion of the medicine and Form-17 were handed over to the accused on acknowledgement. The accused also gave 20 bills by means of which he purchased the medicines which were sold under Section 22(1) Drugs and Cosmetics ACt. The medicines samples were divided into two on 06.10.2003 by P.W.1 and sent the sample to the Public Analyst at Chennai under Form-18. He also gave a show cause notice Ex.P.7 to the accused on 06.10.2003 calling for his explanation as to the stocks for sale without licence of the medicine. The accused gave the explanation on 12.10.2003 under Ex.P.8. He also handed over the original bills which he obtained from the accused on acknowledgement Ex.P.9. After getting the sanction dated 24.12.2003 from the Director of Drug Control, Chennai Ex.P.12. On 30.10.2003 Analysis Report Ex.P.13 was obtained. The copy of the same was sent to the accused. He also got Ex.P.14 the report for Synthotil Oxytocin Inj. I.P medicine and handed over the file to his next incumbent by name Venugopal. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil after considering the evidence on record, reached the conclusion that the charges against the accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him of the charges. Hence, the complainant before the trial Court is before this Court with this appeal. 4. Mr. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil after considering the evidence on record, reached the conclusion that the charges against the accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him of the charges. Hence, the complainant before the trial Court is before this Court with this appeal. 4. Mr. S.Shanmugavelayutham, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant takes this Court to various provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (herein the head of act) and the rules framed there for which are expected to be followed by the authorities concerned in the matter of enforcing the provisions of the Act. 5. The appellant was charged under Sections 18(c) and 27(b) of the Act. Section 18(c) of the Act reads thus:- “(c) [manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale,] or distribute any drug [or cosmetic], except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a license issued for such purpose under this Chapter:” 6. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the complainant/Drug Inspector has to establish that the medicines were stocked by the accused for the purpose of selling and if it be so, then invoking Section 18(c) is not at all tenable. While dealing elaborately with the terms employed in this provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in AIR 1979 SC 564 , [Mohd. Shabbir vs. State of Maharashtra] as follows: “It was contented by Mr.Singh that in order to fall within the ambit of this section the accused must manufacture the drugs for sale or stock or exhibit for sale or distribute the same. There is no evidence in this case to show that the appellant had any shop or that he was a distributing agent. All that has been shown is that the tablets concerned were recovered from his possession. It was urged that possession simpliciter of the tablets of any quantity whatsoever would not fall within the mischief of S.27 of the Act. On an interpretation of S.27, it seems to us that the argument of Mr.Singh is well founded and must prevail. The words used in S.27, namely, “Manufacture for sale, sells,” have a comma after each clause but there is no comma after the clause “stocks or exhibits for sale”. Thus the section postulates three separate categories of cases and no other. The words used in S.27, namely, “Manufacture for sale, sells,” have a comma after each clause but there is no comma after the clause “stocks or exhibits for sale”. Thus the section postulates three separate categories of cases and no other. (1) manufacture for sale; (2) actual sale; (3) stocking or exhibiting for sale or distribution of any drugs. The absence of any comma after the word “stocks” clearly indicates that the clause “stocks or exhibits for sale” is one in divisible whole and it contemplates not merely stocking the drugs but stocking the drugs for the purpose of sale and unless all the ingredients of this category are satisfied, S.27 of the Act would not be attracted." 7. Following the principles laid down in the above said decision, this Court is of the considered view that on scrutiny, the prosecution has not established that the medicines were stocked for the purpose of sale. 8. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) has indicated the explanation given by the appellant Ex.P.8, where he has mentioned that he gives bills to the patients whenever they are required and the purchase and sale of medicine are accountable and annual income tax details show that he was remitting income tax also. The above said portion does not show that the accused admits that he stocked the medicines for the purpose of selling. 9. The next limb of the contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the provisions which contains procedure of inspection in Section 23 of the Act has been violated by the Drug Inspector. Section 23 (3) goes thus: “(3) Where an Inspector takes a sample of a drug [or cosmetic] for the purpose of test or analysis, he shall intimate such purpose in writing in the prescribed form to the person from whom he takes it and, in the presence of such person unless he wilfully absents himself, shall divide the sample into four portions and effectively seal and suitably mark the same and permit such person to add his own seal and mark to all or any of the portions so sealed and marked:” 10. The Drug Inspector is expected to divide the sample into four portions, seal them properly and mark them. In chief examination, the Drug Inspector states that he prepared only two samples, which is in violation of the said provisions. The Drug Inspector is expected to divide the sample into four portions, seal them properly and mark them. In chief examination, the Drug Inspector states that he prepared only two samples, which is in violation of the said provisions. He has not divided the sample into four portions and sealed as contemplated in the above said provisions. 11. Section 57(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 provides that the copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal is to be sealed and the packed and same shall be sent to the Government Analyst separately by registered or by hand. The Rule 57(1) requires the Drug Inspector to prepare the sample and enclose the same with a memorandum in Form-18 in an outer cover with address and send to the Government Analyst. Even though he stated in his chief examination that he put his seal on the sample parcel and prepared Form – 18, he has not specifically stated that he put his seal upon Form-18, the memorandum. The said circumstance is a deviation from of Rule 57(1) and (2). 12. On the side of the appellant it is also argued that the Drug Inspector has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 22(2) of the Act. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that whenever such seizure is made by an authority, the procedure adumbrated in Section 100 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed and in the absence of such observance of procedure, the entire exercise undertaken by the Drug Inspector is vitiated. 13. In a Division Bench of Culcatta High Court reported in 1984 Crl. L.J. 931, [Dr.Sanat Kumar Basu vs. State of West Bengal] it is observed that the Drug Inspector is expected to prepare a seizure list on the spot in the presence of witnesses under Section 22 and 23 and that it is not requirement of law that all seizure list witnesses must be examined nor it is necessary that all of them must sign seizure list in order to prove their possession. The facts in the present case are distinguishable. In the present case on hand, the concerned person namely, appellant/ doctor was available in the place of search and no procedure is followed under Section 22(2) of the Act. 14. The facts in the present case are distinguishable. In the present case on hand, the concerned person namely, appellant/ doctor was available in the place of search and no procedure is followed under Section 22(2) of the Act. 14. In view of the above said observations, this court is of the view that the medicines which were seized by the Drug Inspector were kept in stock were not meant for sale and hence Section 18(c) of the Act would not come to play. I have dealt with the provisions as regards the procedure required to be followed, as contemplated in the Act and the rules and the non-observance of which would vitiate the proceedings. There is no valid ground to modify nor set aside the judgment challenged before this Court which deserves to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed. The appeal suffers dismissal. In the result the appeal is dismissed.