Judgment 1. Petitioner challenges the judgment of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri District, passed in C.A.No.18 of 2013 on 29.08.2013, confirming the order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Krishnagiri, passed in S.T.C.No.985 of 2009 on 23.01.2013. 2. The petitioner was running a medical shop viz., 'M/s. Sri Balaji Medicals'. Pursuant to directions issued by the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Salem Zone, the Drugs Inspectors, Salem II Range and Namakkal Range, had inspected the petitioner's medical shop. In the course of inspection, it was found that certain drugs were stored without a valid drug license and hence, the same were seized. Thereafter, a memo dated 22.12.2008 has been issued to the accused alleging contravention of Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The petitioner has caused reply to such memo without furnishing details of purchase. Therefore, the respondent has filed a charge sheet against the petitioner informing commission of offence punishable u/s.27(b)(ii) and 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The case was tried in S.T.C.No.985 of 2009 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Krishnagiri. 3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined three witnesses and marked 12 documents and 87 material objects. None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked. 4. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/-i/d 1 month S.I. for offence u/s. 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and fine of Rs.500/-i/d 2 weeks S.I. for offence u/s. 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Against such finding, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.18 of 2013 before learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. Under judgment dated 29.08.2013, the appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). 6. In arriving at its decision, the appellate Court merely has gone by Ex.P7 wherein the petitioner allegedly admitted to the closure of the medical shop as also the inspection and seizure done in his presence. Hence, this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). 6. In arriving at its decision, the appellate Court merely has gone by Ex.P7 wherein the petitioner allegedly admitted to the closure of the medical shop as also the inspection and seizure done in his presence. It has rejected the contention of the petitioner that his signature in Exs.P4, P7 and P10 were obtained on blank papers informing that the petitioner had failed to prove such fact and on the surmise that if such was the position the petitioner would have lodged a police complaint or caused a legal notice. The prosecution case is that Ex.P7 reflected the position that this petitioner had purchased the medical shop from the prior owner by name Kamalakannan. It is an admitted case that neither Kamalakannan, the person in whose name the pharmacy license stood nor one Jayanthi in whose name the shop stood, had so much as been examined. This Court is of the view that such persons would be material witnesses, whose examination by the investigating officer and their subsequent deposition in Court would have fortified the prosecution case. In the absence thereof, the contention of the petitioner/accused cannot be brushed aside. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. The judgment of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri District, passed in C.A.No.18 of 2013 on 29.08.2013, confirming the order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Krishnagiri, passed in S.T.C.No.985 of 2009 on 23.01.2013, shall stand set aside.