Judgment : The appeal is filed by the State questioning the acquittal of the accused in Calendar Case No.217 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandyal. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, on 06.12.1997 the Drug Inspector has inspected the house of the accused bearing House No.2/131 of Karimaddela village and seized 118 items of drugs stored by him under the cover of panchanama, for which, he did not produce any licence. Thereafter, when a notice was given to him, he claims to have purchased the medicines from M/s. Katyayini Medical and Fancy Stores, opposite to RTC Bus stand at Nandyal. A notice was given to the said medical store, but there was no reply. Therefore, the accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (for short, ‘the Act’) for contravention of provisions of Sections 18(C) and 18(A) of the Act respectively. The accused pleaded not guilty. 3. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.O.1. On behalf of the defence no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the Court below has acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 4. In spite of service of notice on the respondent, none appeared on his behalf. 5. The points for consideration are: 1) Whether the accused was found in possession of the medicines and liable for punishment under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act for contravention of provisions of Section 18(C) of the Act? 2) Whether the accused is guilty of offence punishable under Section 28 of the Act for contravention of provisions of Section 18(A) of the Act? 3) Whether the acquittal recorded by the Court below is legal and sustainable? 6. POINTS: So far as the factum of seizure of the drugs from House No.2-131 as per the detailed list in the presence of the panchas is concerned, there is not of much dispute and the ownership of the premises is also not disputed. The mediators’ report-Ex.P.2 bears the signature of the accused. It is also not in dispute that the drugs seized are of different varieties numbering 118 manufactured by different companies. The lower Court did not discard the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 about the seizure. The mediators’ report-Ex.P.2 bears the signature of the accused. It is also not in dispute that the drugs seized are of different varieties numbering 118 manufactured by different companies. The lower Court did not discard the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 about the seizure. The lower Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that storing of the drugs by itself is not an offence and evidence of PW.1 also discloses that the accused was prosecuted for storing and consequently when mere storing of the drugs without any licence for sale is not an offence and therefore acquitted the accused for the charge under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. 7. In recording the finding of acquittal on this aspect, the Court below has relied upon the judgment reported in Mohd. Shabbir Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 SUPMREME COURT 564), wherein it was held that the stock of drugs should be for sale and mere possession simplicitor does not appear to be punishable under any of the provisions of the Act. Their lordships have considered the purport of Section 18(C) and Section 27 of the Act. In this connection, it is useful to note that in an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sk. Amir Vs. The State of Maharashtra (AIR 1974 SUPREME COURT 469), the Supreme Court has held that when large quantity of drug was found in possession of the accused, it left no room of doubt that he has stocked or kept the drug for sale. It could not have been meant for his personal use. In this case, the accused is not claiming that he has stored these drugs for his personal use. He has not given any explanation as to the necessity of keeping so many medicines of different companies meant for different diseases in his house. It is difficult to believe that except for a sale those medicines would have been kept in his house and in fact in his explanation under Ex.P.6, dated 26.02.1998 he claimed that those medicines were purchased by him from Katyayini Medicals and Fancy Stores at Nandyal and that he will produce the receipts within two days. His explanation does not show as to for what purpose he has purchased so many medicines and evidently, he has not produced the bills subsequently. His explanation does not show as to for what purpose he has purchased so many medicines and evidently, he has not produced the bills subsequently. It is not his case that they were meant for the use of his family members. Therefore, a valid presumption can be drawn that those medicines were kept for sale in his house and there being no explanation, it has to be taken as a conclusive presumption which the law cannot ignore in the natural circumstances. It can only be that he was dealing illegally in the sale of the medicines without any licence. 8. The Court below has not considered this particular aspect as to what was the purpose of the accused to store so many drugs and refused to draw the presumption on the ground that in the evidence the Drug Inspector, he has not stated about the fact that they were meant for sale. It is to be noted that a presumption of fact has to be drawn from the circumstances and the nature of possession. The charge framed by the Court below under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act itself clearly shows that the accused has stocked or offered for sale 118 different items of drugs without valid licence. If that being so, the complaint is very clear and the nature of the charge pointing the guilt of the accused is not unambiguous and the refusal of the Court to draw a presumption merely on the evidence of the Drug Inspector is not warranted. When possession is with the accused and when there is no licence, it is for him to say for what purpose he has stored them. A presumption of fact has to be drawn by the Court and the gist of the evidence and complaint has to be taken together, the accused was not taken by surprise when the charge clearly mentions the purpose of storing for sale only. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the Court can draw a valid presumption, particularly so, when there is no proof of purchase of the drugs or need for storing them by the accused. The offence under Section 18(C) read with 27(b)(ii) of the Act has been squarely made out and the accused has to be convicted. 9. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the Court can draw a valid presumption, particularly so, when there is no proof of purchase of the drugs or need for storing them by the accused. The offence under Section 18(C) read with 27(b)(ii) of the Act has been squarely made out and the accused has to be convicted. 9. So far as the offence under Section 28 of the Act is concerned, evidently it is the duty of the accused to furnish the particulars from whom these drugs were acquired. On this aspect, the lower Court has found fault with the Drug Inspector finding that the accused has disclosed the name of Katyayini Medical and Fancy stores and though notice was given, when it has not responded no action has been taken and consequently, no offence under Section 28 of the Act was made out. This reasoning of the learned Magistrate is also not proper. In fact, under Ex.P.6 the accused has undertaken to produce the receipts about the purchase of medicines from Katyayini Medicals and Fancy Stores within two days. But, subsequently, they are not furnished. In fact, during the trial also no such receipts were exhibited. Therefore, it is very difficult to expect that Katyayini Medicals and Fancy Stores would have responded to the notice given by PW.1 when there is no document to show that these medicines were sold to the accused by the said shop. Therefore, it is quite clear that the accused has taken a vague plea and it is not supported by any material and consequently, an offence under Section 28 of the Act also has been squarely made out. 10. I, therefore, find that the acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Act for contravention of the provisions of Sections 18(C) and 18(A) of the Act is not legal and the accused is accordingly convicted under Section 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the above said offences. 11. So far as the punishment for the offence punishable under Section 18(C) read with 27(b)(ii) of the Act is concerned, prior to the amendment in 2008 by Act 26 of 2008 the imprisonment shall not be less than for one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs.5,000/-. 11. So far as the punishment for the offence punishable under Section 18(C) read with 27(b)(ii) of the Act is concerned, prior to the amendment in 2008 by Act 26 of 2008 the imprisonment shall not be less than for one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs.5,000/-. The offence in this case has taken place in 1997 and taking into consideration that the accused is young and there were no previous convictions of this nature, I feel the ends of justice would meet if he is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. So far as the offence under Section 18(A) of the Act is concerned, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment of one month. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Judicial Magistrate of I Class is directed to issue Non-Bailable Warrant for apprehension of the accused for suffering the sentence. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.