JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.6.2008 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT), Sawai Madhopur in cr. Appeal no. 07/2006 wherein the order of conviction and sentence of accused petitioner passed by the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur has been confirmed, and against the judgment dated 13.10.2004 passed by learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur in cr. Case no. 518/1988 wherein he has convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 18(c) read with 27(b)(ii) Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sentenced the accused petitioner for one year SI and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months SI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.12.1988, a complaint came to be filed by the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur by complainant Sunil Kumar, Drug Inspector, Sawai Madhopur to the effect that on 30.1.1987, Drug Inspector, Dholpur Headquarter, Shri Heeralal Bansal carried out the inspection of the clinic of accused Kalyan Sahai situated at Gudachandraji Bus Stand and found certain allopathic medicines stocked and exhibited at the premises of the petitioner for which no license was produced on demand. 3. On the basis of above, the medicines and the bills of various medical shops is wherefrom the medicines were purchased were seized in presence of Rajendra Kumar, Ramklshore, Mithalal, Umesh Chand, Ramswaroop Saini and Kalyan Sahai. 4. After filing of complaint, the learned trial court took cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 18(c)/27(b)(li) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (herein after referred to be as 'the Act of 1940') and charge was framed against the petitioner, to which the petitioner denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 06 witnesses and got certain documents exhibited. The statement of accused petitioner under Section 313 Cr.RC. was recorded. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court vide order dated 13.10.2004 convicted the appellant as under: vfHk;kstu i{k dh lk{; ls vfHk;qDr loZJh dY;k.k lgk; lSuh fuoklh xq<+kpUnzth rglhy uknkSrh 2ds fo:) yxk;k x;k vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk 18 ( x ) lifBr /kkjk 27 ( ch ) ( 11 ) vkS"kf/k ,oa lkSUn;Z izlk/ku lkexzh vf/kfu;e] 1940 dk lUnsg ls ijs izekf.kr djkus esa lQy jgus ds dkj.k mls mDr vkjksi ds fy, nks"kh djkj fd;k tkrk gSA 5. Against the said order dated 13.10.2004, the appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate court, who vide order dated 10.6.2008 has passed the following order: vfHk;qDr vihykaV dY;k.k lgk; lSuh iq= Jh 'kadj lgk; uSuh fuoklh xq<+kpUnzth] rglhy uknkSrh ftyk lokbZ ek/kksiqj }kjk izdj.k uEcjh QkStnkjh la0 518@88] tqeZ /kkjk 18 ( x ) @27 vkS"kf/k ,oa lkSUn;Z izlk/ku lkexzh vf/kfu;e] 1940 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 13-10-2004 ds lEcU/k esa izLrqr dh x;h ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA ekrgr U;k;ky; eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~zsV] lokbZ ek/kksiqj dk fu.kZ; ,oa n.Mkns'k fnukad 13-10-2004 iq"V fd;k tkrk gSA iqf"V okjaV cuk;k tkosA fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr ds lkFk fo}ku ekrgr U;k;ky; dh i=koyh rqjUr ykSVkbZ tkosA 6. Hence this revision petition has been filed.Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the findings of both the courts below in convicting the petitioner is patently illegal and perverse and contrary to facts on record. Both the courts below have misinterpreted the Section 18(c) and Section 27 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, therefore, both the impugned judgment and orders of sentence are erroneous and bad in the eyes of law. It has been contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case upon the fact that the petitioner had a retail shop or that he was a distribution agent. All that has been showed is that the medicines have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and that he had stocked the medicines in his clinic. The possession of medicines would not fall within the mischief of Section 27 of the Act. In the instant case there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had either got these medicines for sale or was selling them or had stocked them for sale. 7. It has further been contended that all the medicines which have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner were only for medicinal purposes to be used by the petitioner. The medicines so stocked were stocked only for the purpose of medical treatment of the patients and not for the purpose of sale. It has been averred that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner was a registered medical practitioner and had been practicing medicines since a very long time. The medicines so stocked were stocked only for the purpose of medical treatment of the patients and not for the purpose of sale. It has been averred that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner was a registered medical practitioner and had been practicing medicines since a very long time. Further it has not been proved by the prosecution as to whom the petitioner has sold the medicines and also no bill book has been recovered by the petitioner which could have gone to prove that the medicines stocked by the petitioner were for sale. It has further been contended that both the courts below have ignored the fact that the petitioner is a registered medical practitioner and the certificate of the same has been issued according to law. 8. It has been contended that both the courts below did not appreciate the fact that no witness has deposed in their statement that the petitioner was selling the medicines at his shop at the time of inspection nor has it come on the record that the petitioner used to sell them. The medicines so seized from the premises were only for medicinal purpose and not for sale and mere possession of the medicines from the premises of the petitioner do not fulfil the requirement so as to attract section 27 of the Act of 1940. 9. In support of his submission, he has drawn attention of this court towards the judgment reported in AIR 1958 Allahabad, 865 - Dharam Deo Gupta v. State . 10. Thus in the alternate, it has been requested on behalf of the petitioner that if this court comes to a definite conclusion that the judgment & orders of both the courts below cannot be set aside, in such circumstances, the sentence awarded to the petitioner should be reduced for the period already undergone by him in custody. In support of this submission, he has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 1442 -Mugutrao Digambar Ghorge v. State of Maharashtra ; and (1998)3 SCC 63 -State of Orissa v. Janmejoy Dinda etc. and contended that if the conditions specified in the proviso are present, the Court has the power to reduce the sentence even further down. and contended that if the conditions specified in the proviso are present, the Court has the power to reduce the sentence even further down. For that there must be adequate and special reasons and such reasons should be recorded in the judgment and there shall still be a term of imprisonment and fine in the reduced sentence. 11. It has further been contended that since the matter pertains to year 1987 i.e. 28 years old and at that time the petitioner was young man but now he has become an old person, having children of marriageable age, belongs to a respectable family, it is his first offence of the life, the sentence awarded to the petitioner should be reduced for the period already undergone by him. 12. On the other hand, Mr. B.N. Sandu, AAG appearing along with Ms. Sonia Sandilya, PP for the State has contended that it is a fit case in which the trial court has convicted the accused petitioner and same has been confirmed by the appellate court. It has also been contended that since the counsel for the petitioner could not establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, and also could not pointed out any illegality or perversity in the judgments of courts below, or he has not shown any fact which tentamounts to question of law before this court, hence the Impugned judgment and orders of both the courts below should not be interfered with. In fact both the courts below after considering the statements of prosecution witnesses, after considering the relevant facts & circumstances of the cases, as also material available on record and the judgments cited by both the parties, passed the aforesaid impugned orders. 13. It has been contended that the trial court in its order at para no. 29 specifically averred that after going through the entire evidence, seven times bail bonds of accused were forfeited. 13. It has been contended that the trial court in its order at para no. 29 specifically averred that after going through the entire evidence, seven times bail bonds of accused were forfeited. The prosecution witness PW-1 Sunil Kumar Gupta has deposed as under: " l'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd eSaus vxLr 1987 esa Jh ghjkyky caly ls ftyk lokbZek/kksiqj dk vkS"kf/k fujh{kd dk dk;ZHkkj laHkkyk FkkA dk;ZHkkj ds le; eq>s bl dsl ds dkxtkr miyC/k djk;s x;sA fnukad 13-01-88 dks vfHk;qDr dY;k.k lgk; lSuh fu0 xq<+kpUnzth dks tfj;s i= izkbZosV izsfDVl ,yksisFkh fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa jftLV~zs'ku] vkfn is'k djus dks dgkA Jh dY;k.k lgk; lSuh }kjk eq>s dksbZ Hkh i= izek.k i=] mRrj bl i= ds lEcU/k esa ugha fn;kA bl izdj.k ds lEcU/k esa vkS"kf/k fu;a=d ,oa fpfdRlk funs'kd] fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; lsok,a t;iqj dks voxr djk;k] ftUgksaus vius i= EX.P1 }kjk fn0 7-9-88 }kjk l{ke U;k;ky; esa ifjokn is'k djus dh vuqefr nhA EX.1 esa A to B Mk0 Mh ds t;nso vkS"kf/k fu;a=d ds gLrk{kj gSa ftUgsa fd eSa igpkurk gwaA eSaus tks i= vfHk;qDr dks fy[kk og EX.P2 gSA bl ij esjs gLrk{kj A to B gSA eSaus bLrxklk fn0 19-12-88 dks U;k;ky; ekuuh; lh ts ,e egksn; ds izLrqr fd;kA eq>s vkS"kf/k fujh{kd ds in ij dk;Z djus dh xtV uksfVfQds'ku EX.P3 gSA " 14. Further, Mr. Sandu, AAG appearing for State has drawn the attention of this court towards the statement of PW-2 Meethan Lal Gupta, who has confirmed the contents of the complain. Similarly, PW-3 Umesh Chand Sharma has also confirmed the contents of complaint and then in the same manner, PW-4 Heeralal also deposed the same. Other relevant prosecution witnesses also confirmed the contents of complaint filed by the complainant before the trial court. He has drawn attention of this court towards the bills tom where the drugs have been purchased and also drew attention swards the circular Ex.P-46A and, hence requested that judgment and order of both the courts below should not be interfered with. It has also been contended that where the minimum sentence is provided and if court educes the minimum sentence, then it must have to record adequate reasons. It has also been contended that where the minimum sentence is provided and if court educes the minimum sentence, then it must have to record adequate reasons. But in the instant case, since no specific reason has been Minted out by the counsel for the petitioner for reducing the minimum sentence and since the act of the petitioner is proved that he was looting the money from innocent persons, and he has not shown his educational Qualification before the courts below, his sentence should not be reduced 1 tor the period already undergone by him because the minimum sentence has been provided under the law. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders quoted herein above, and material available on record. The relevant Section 27 read with Section 18(c) of the Act is reproduced as under: "27. Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter. -- Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes. The relevant Section 27 read with Section 18(c) of the Act is reproduced as under: "27. Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter. -- Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes. (a) any drug deemed to be adulterated under section 17A or spurious under section 17B or which when used by any person for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, or prevention of any disease or disorder is likely to cause such harm on his body as would amount to grievous hurt within the meaning of section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, solely on account of such drug being adulterated or spurious or not of standard quality, as the case may be, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to a term of life and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees;] (b) any drug - (i) deemed to be adulterated under section 17A, but not being a drug referred to in clause (a), or (ii) without a valid licence as required under clause (c) of section 18, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees : Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year and of fine of less than five thousand rupees; (c) any drug deemed to be spurious under section 17B, but not being a drug referred to in clause (a) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees : Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons, to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three years but not less than one year; (d) any drug, other than a drug referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), in contravention of any other provision of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to two years and with fine: Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons, to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year." 18. Prohibition of manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics. -From such 1 date as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf - (c) manufacture for sale 2 [or for distribution], or sell, or stock or exhibit 2 [or offer] for sale, or distribute any drug 4 [or cosmetic], except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Chapter: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the manufacture, subject to prescribed condition of small quantities of any drug for the purpose of examination, test or analysis : Provided further that the 5 [Central Government] may, after consultation with the Board, by notification in the Official Gazette, permit, subject to any conditions specified in the notification, the 2 [manufacture for sale, or for distribution, sale, stocking or exhibiting or offering for sale or distribution] of any drug or class of drugs not being of standard quality. 16. From the bare perusal of aforesaid provision, it is clear that the trial courts after going through the material available on record, framed the charges upon the petitioner and thereafter prosecution has submitted the witnesses and after due appreciation of evidence, it has passed the impugned order convicting the petitioner as indicated above. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court, who too after due appreciation of evidence and material available on record, confirmed the judgment of trial court and since there is concurrent findings of both the courts below which prove that the petitioner has committed offence levelled against him, I do not think it just and proper to interfere in the orders of both the courts below. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the appellate court which are reproduced as under: vfHk;qDr vihykaV dk eq[; rdZ ;g gS fd vfHk;qDr vihykaV nokbZ;ka fodz; ugha dj jgk Fkk blfy, fodz; ugha djus ds dkj.k /kkjk 18 ( x ) lifBr /kkjk 27ch ( 11 ) vkS"kf/k ,oa lkSUn;Z izlk/ku lkexzh vf/kfu;e] 1940 ds vkjksi esa fl) nks"k ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr us , vkbZ vkj 1979 ( ,l lh ) 564 dk fofu'p; is'k fd;k gS] ftlesa vfHk;qDr jsyos LVs'ku ij 17 IykfLVd ds FkSyksa esa 1700 lQsn jax dh xksfy;ka ys tkrs gq, vkS"kf/k fujh{kd] tyxkao }kjk idM+k x;k Fkk ftlesa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd /kkjk 18 ( x ) @27 vkS"kf/k ,oa lkSUn;Z izlk/ku lkexzh vf/kfu;e] 1940 ds rgr ( 1 ) fodz; ds fy, vfHkfuekZ.k ( 2 ) okLrfod fodz; ( 3 ) rFkk fodz; ds fy, laxzg.k ;k izn'kZu dk gksuk vko';d gSA laxzg.k Hkh fodz; ds fy, gksuk pkfg,A bl ekeys esa pwafd vfHk;qDr jsyos LVs'ku ij 1700 lQsn jax dh xksfy;ksa ds lkFk idM+k x;k Fkk blfy, fodz; ugha ekuk x;k FkkA blfy, /kkjk 27 esa nks"kflf) vikLr dh x;h FkhA ijUrq izLrqr ekeys esa QkeZ ua0 16 esa nf'kZr dzekad 1 ls 33 dh nokbZ;ka vfHk;qDr vihykaV dh fDyfud ls tCr dh x;h gSA fDyfud ,d O;olkf;d LFky gSA fDyfud cl LVs.M xq<+kth esa vofLFkr gSA bl rjg fDyfud xzkeh.kksa dh eq[; vkoktkgh ds LFkku ij gksus ds dkj.k ge ;g fcuk la'k; ds fu"d"kZ ij igqaprs gSa fd laxzfgr nokbZ;ksa dk fodz; fd;k tkrk FkkA blfy, izLrqr U;k; n'"Vkar rF;ksa ls fHkUurk j[kus ds dkj.k gekjs fouez erkuqlkj bl izdj.k ij ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA xokgksa us Hkh eqyfte dks batsD'ku yxkrs ns[kk gSA Lo;a Hkh eqyfte izsfDVl ds fy, nokbZ;ksa dks laxzfgr djuk crk jgk gSA fnukad 30-01-87 dks izsfDVl djus dk dksbZ fof/kd izek.k i= vfHk;qDr vihykaV ds ikl ugha FkkA blfy, eqyfte vihykaV ekSdk fujh{k.k fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih0 2 rFkk QkWeZ ua0 16 izn'kZ ih0 3 }kjk tCr nokbZ;ksa dk fcuk izek.k i= fodz; ds fy, laxzfgr djus dk nks"kh ik;k tkrk gSA ekrgr U;k;ky; us fof/k vuqlkj pqukSrh xzLr fu.kZ; ,oa n.Mkns'k ikfjr fd;k gSA ftlesa gLr{ksi dk dksbZ dkj.k 'kkfey i=koyh ugha gSA 17. Accordingly, in view of above discussion and after examining the entire record and thoroughly gone through the legal aspect of the matter, I do not think it just and proper to set aside the conviction and interfere with the Impugned judgment and orders of both the courts below. Hence the impugned judgment and order of both the courts on the point of conviction are maintained. 18. So far as prayer for reducing of sentence on behalf of petitioner is concerned, I do not find any force in it, as I am in agreement with the submissions advanced on behalf of the State and the findings arrived at by both the courts below that the petitioner has not Shown any adequate or specific reasons upon which minimum sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by the petitioner in custody. Hence I am of the considered opinion that sentence cannot be reduced without there being any adequate or specific reasons. 19. In the result, this revision petition having no force, is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and orders of both the courts below. Accused petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. Record is sent back to the trial court.Revision Dismissed. *******