JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral):- This appeal emanates from a judgment delivered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, whereby accused (respondent herein) was acquitted of the charges under Section 18 (c) read with Rule 61 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The allegation against him was that he had stocked for sale and distribution allopathic drugs without any licence and without being registered as medical practitioner. 2. The complaint was filed by Drug Controller Officer against the respondent/accused alleging that on 27th June, 1997 the complainant alongwith Dr. Anil Sharma, Medical Officer, CHC Kalanaur in order to investigate a complaint visited the clinic of Dr. Diwan Singh Dalal (respondent herein). He was found sitting in the clinic and dispensing medicines to his patients. Number of allopathic medicines were found to be stocked in the clinic. 14 types of allopathic drugs were seized and taken into possession vide form 16 prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The sealed box and form 16 were signed by the complainant Dr. Anil Sharma, Medical Officer, CHC Kalanaur, the accused and the public witness and inspection form was also filled at the spot. The same were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. In evidence which was led before the trial court, Dr. Anil Sharma, Medical Officer appeared as PW1 and the complainant Adarsh Goel appeared as PW2. The documents seized were tendered in evidence as Ex.P1/A and Ex.P2. Custody of drugs were proved by way of document Ex.P2/A. After considering the entire evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It, thus, acquitted the accused/respondent. Aggrieved, State of Haryana has preferred this appeal before this court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the accused/appellant never possessed any licence for storing allopathic drugs. The said drugs having been found in his possession, onus clearly fell upon him to explain possession thereof. He thus submits that trial court has gravely erred in acquitting the accused of the offences alleged. 4. I have heard Mr. Amit Goyal, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant. 5. I am not impressed by the submissions made before this court. It is evident that prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness in support of its case. One such witness, namely Duli Chand was given up by the prosecution. 4. I have heard Mr. Amit Goyal, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant. 5. I am not impressed by the submissions made before this court. It is evident that prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness in support of its case. One such witness, namely Duli Chand was given up by the prosecution. This apart, according to Section 22 (2) of the Act, provisions of Criminal Procedure are applicable to any such search or seizer made under the Act. In view of same, Section 100 (4) would come into play which requires association of two or more independent witnesses and a respectable inhabitant of the locality to attend and witness the search. Admittedly, this procedure was not followed in letter and spirit. The search and seizer, thus, cannot be termed to be legal. This apart, the prosecution witnesses, namely, Dr. Anil Sharma and Adarsh Goel admitted that no sale or purchase of medicines took place in their presence, nor any medicine was prescribed to any patient by the accused. 6. I am, thus, of the considered view that the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused of the offences alleged. Permission to leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. is hereby refused. Dismissed. ----------0.N.K.0----------