JUDGMENT T. Krishnavalli, J. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment, dated 11.11.2009 made in C.A. No. 37 of 2007 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Dindigul, confirming the Judgment, dated 05.07.2007 made in C.C.No.8 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.08.1995 the respondent had inspected the Clinic of the accused and seized some quantity of drugs, which were kept without any valid. 3. In the trial court, on the side of the prosecution, 4 witnesses were examined and 20 documents and one material object were marked. When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances, he denied the same. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo further one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 18(c) r/w 27(b)(ii) of the Drug and Cosmetics Act and to undergo one year simple imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo further one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 18(A) r/w 28 of the Drug and Cosmetics Act. Against the order of the trial court, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.37 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul. The learned first appellate Judge also confirmed the order of the trial Judge. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the revision petitioner/accused is before this court. 4. Against the order of the trial court, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.37 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul. The learned first appellate Judge also confirmed the order of the trial Judge. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the revision petitioner/accused is before this court. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sanction for the prosecution is not only must, but also must be in accordance with the procedures contemplated under law; that the courts below failed to appreciate the fact that there are two show cause notices and two replies, which is contrary to the provisions of Act; that the courts below ought to have seen that neither PW1 nor PW3 had made any attempt to get the name of the seller or the dealer of the seized drugs from the accused; that the courts below ought to have seen the procedure and manner of seizure and search was also against law; that the independent witness, Mahazar witness PW2 did not support the case of the prosecution and that itself very much sufficient to discard the evidence of PW3; that the courts below ought to have seen the manner of deposition of PW1 to PW3 is unknown to law; that the courts below ought to have seen that there are ample motive for PW1 to PW3 to implicate the accused falsely, which is sufficiently proved by the evidence of PW2; that the courts below ought to have seen that there is no iota of evidence to prove that the accused prescribed, administered or sold the drugs to the patients; that the courts below ought to have seen that earlier the very same PW3 instituted a complaint against the accused in C.C.No.720 of 1993 and the same ended in acquittal; that though the inspection at the premises of the accused was conducted on 04.08.1995, the complaint was presented only on 15.11.2002 and this inordinate delay is hit by Section 468 of Cr.P.C. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the courts below failed to look into the proposition that under Section 18, for mere stocking of drugs for the purpose of supplying the same to patients in a hospital free of cost, it does not require any license at all and in this case, even though without prejudice to the case of the revision petitioner admitted that the revision petitioner possessed some drugs for the purpose of patients and not for sale, license is not required. 6. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the following judgments :- 1. (Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Graduates Association Vs. Indian Medical Association, (2011) 2 CTC 203 ); 2. (Sarah Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr. K.M. Cherian and Others, (2013) 4 MLJ(Cri) 720); and 3. (State represented by the Public Prosecutor Vs. M/s.The Leprosy Mission (TLM), (2015) 2 LW(Cri) 138. 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent/State submitted that both the courts below appreciated the evidence in a proper manner and believed the evidence in a proper manner and having regard to the nature of the offence, convicted the revision petitioner and passed proper sentence, which do not call for any interference by this court and the accused is not entitled for acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be dismissed. 8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 9. In this case, at the time of occurrence, PW1 is the Inspector of Drugs. Mobile Squad, Madurai. She deposed that on 05.05.1995, she received a complaint from the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Mobile Squad, Madurai and on the basis of the complaint, she along with one Ganesan, Inspector of Drugs went to the accused Clinic on 04.08.1995 at 11.00 pm, at that time, they saw that the accused was in possession of allopathy medicines without permission or licence and hence, they recovered the allopathy medicines and for sample purpose, they purchased medicine for Rs. 200/- and the medicines were sent for analysis and based on the receipt of the analysis report, they sent a notice calling upon the accused for the illegal possession of the drugs without permission, for that the accused filed a writ petition before the High Court and after dismissal of the writ petition, the accused sent a reply and then after getting permission, they preferred a complaint as against the accused. Hence, the accused is liable to be punished under Section 18(b) r/w 27(B) and 18(a) r/w 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 10. Pw2 Ramesh Kumar is the attesting witness. But he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. 11. Pw3 Selvaraj is the Senior Drug Inspector and he deposed that in receipt of the complaint as against the accused, on 04.08.1995 he along with PW1 went to the Clinic of the accused and seized the medicines, which were kept on the table and on enquiry, the accused told them that the medicines were kept for giving treatment to the patients and on payment of Rs. 200/-, they received the medicines and thereafter sent the same for analysis and on the basis of the analysis report, they sent a notice to the accused calling for explanation for the possession of drugs and then writ petition has been filed as against the accused and since, he was transferred to some other place, he handed over the case filed to the newly joined officer. 12. Pw4 Periya Pandi is the magazar witness. But he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW2 and PW3 are independent witnesses. But they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, it creates doubt about the prosecution case. No explanation was offered on the prosecution side for the non-production of the original complaint. Hence, the non-production of the original complaint is fatal to the prosecution. 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused argued that the prosecution has to prove that the medicines, which were in possession of the accused, was for sale and distribution, but in this case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was in possession of allopathy medicines and hence, the revision petitioner/accused is entitled for acquittal. 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused argued that the prosecution has to prove that the medicines, which were in possession of the accused, was for sale and distribution, but in this case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was in possession of allopathy medicines and hence, the revision petitioner/accused is entitled for acquittal. For the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has relied upon the judgment (State represented by the Public Prosecutor vs. M/s.The Leprosy Mission (TLM), (2015) 2 LW(Cri) 138) contending that under Section 18 for mere stocking of the drugs for the purpose of supplying the same to patients, it does not require any licence at all. 14. In the judgment (State represented by the Public Prosecutor Vs. M/s.The Leprosy Mission, (2015) 2 LW(Cri) 138), this court has held as follows :- "11. In the case on hand, it is the positive case of the prosecution that the drugs were kept only for sale and not for free supply to the patients. This fact is to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has held that this fact has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as required in law. The trial Court has given cogent reasons for such conclusion. 15. In this case, no witness was examined to the effect that the medicines were being sold to anybody. Further, PW1 and PW3 have not seized any bill or receipt to prove that the accused sold the allopathy medicines. 16. It is mainly argued on the side of the prosecution that the evidence of the Drug Inspector coupled with the material documents to show that the accused has committed the offence under Section 18(c) as well as under Section 18(A) of the Act and hence, the accused is not entitled for acquittal. 17. In the complaint, it is stated that the accused was stocking allopathy drugs for sale and distribution and for that, he did not have any licence. It is seen from the records that the accused is a medical practitioner though he had no licence to practice in Allopathy, but was only licensed to practice in Siddha. 18. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being a practitioner in Siddha was also practicing Allopathy by dispensing Allopathic drugs to the patients. It is seen from the records that the accused is a medical practitioner though he had no licence to practice in Allopathy, but was only licensed to practice in Siddha. 18. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being a practitioner in Siddha was also practicing Allopathy by dispensing Allopathic drugs to the patients. When the prosecution itself has a definite case that the accused is a practitioner, then it is for the prosecution to establish further that the drugs seized were not stocked by the accused for the purpose of distribution or sale. The prosecution has not let in any evidence, but on the contrary had come out with a case that the accused was practising in Allopathic Medicines also. Merely because some Allopathic medicines were seized from the shop of the accused, where he was running a Clinic, this court cannot draw an interference that he has kept the Allopathic medicines for distribution or sale especially when he was a medical practitioner. 19. The words stock or exhibit for sale found under Section 18(c) of the Act, are indivisible and the person stocking a drug cannot be held guilty unless he does so for sale. In the case on hand, there is no evidence to show that the accused has stocked the medicines, which he had in his possession for the purpose of sale and to make out an offence under Section 18(c) of the Act, the prosecution must also prove that they were stocked and exhibited for sale and not merely that they were stocked. Mere stock by itself is not an offence under Section 18(c) unless the said stock is meant for sale or distribution. In the absence of any evidence that the accused stocked the medicines in his clinic for distribution or sale. The trial Judge was justified in acquitting him under Section 18(c) of the Act. 20. Once it is held that the offence under Section 18(c) of the Act is not made out, then the other offence under Section 18(A) will have to automatically go, as a person, under Section 18(A), can be prosecuted if he fails to give the details of the manufacturer of the drugs which he has stocked for sale or distribution. 21. Once it is held that the offence under Section 18(c) of the Act is not made out, then the other offence under Section 18(A) will have to automatically go, as a person, under Section 18(A), can be prosecuted if he fails to give the details of the manufacturer of the drugs which he has stocked for sale or distribution. 21. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court (S.K. Amir vs. State of Maharashtra, 1974 (4) SCC 209), wherein it has been held that the plaint meaning of the word 'stock' in these provisions of the Act is to kept and the injunction of the law means no more than this and that no person shall keep for sale a misbranded drug or a drug in respect of which a valid licence is not held and that if anyone keeps or carries a drug on his person in contravention of the terms of the Act and it is proved that the drug is kept or carried for sale, the act must fall within the mischief of the law under consideration and keeping for sale is of the essence of the matter, But not the mode and the manner of keeping. It was further held that it must be proved that the stock is meant for sale. 22. Further, in the judgment reported in (1975)III SCC 322, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if an offence under Section 18(c) is to be proved, four questions have to be asked and they are;- (i) it is a drug; (ii) if it is, is it stored in a piece or is the storage for sale? (iii) if it is stored in a place, is the storage for sale? (iv) if it is a licence for that place half-way house may be is the only answer to a prosecution and what looms large, then whether storing is one for sale? 23. When this court pose those four questions, in this case, the answer can only be in the negative since even admittedly on the facts the accused did not stock those medicines for sale as he was a Doctor dispensing medicines to his patients though he was licensed not to practise in Allopathy, but licensed to practice only in Siddha and Ayurveda. 24. 24. As this court had already held that the accused did not stock the medicines for exhibition or sale, he cannot be expected to give the name of the manufacturer. 25. Further, in this case the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused argued that in this case, the prosecution has failed to prove that from whom, the accused purchased the allopathy medicines and hence, he is entitled for acquittal. On careful perusal of the evidence, it is seen that the prosecution has not examined the dealer from whom, the accused purchased the allopathy medicines. Hence, this court is of the considered view that it is fatal to the prosecution. 26. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer the decision of this court (Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Graduates Association Vs. Indian Medical Association, (2011) 2 CTC 203 ), wherein it is held as follows :- "49. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the order passed by this Court in Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Graduates Association Vs. Letika Saran, I.P.S, The Director General of Police (Law & Order), (2010) 4 CTC 798 , is held to be a correct position of law, For the sake of repetition, it is observed as follows :- "4...it is imperative that no proceedings can be initiated against any of those registered practitioners in Siddha, Ayurveda, Homeopathy and Unani, who are eligible to practice irrespective of the respective system also with Modern Scientific Medicine including Surgery and Gynaecology Obstetrics, Anaesthesiology, ENT, Ophthalmology, etc. Such registration of the medical practitioners with Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council, Tamil Board of Indian Medicine and Tamil Nadu Homeopathy Medical Counsel as well as such of those qualified Doctors who were recognised as such by the Madurai Kamaraj University and Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University who have been qualified respectively in the system of bachelor of Siddha Medicine and Surgery. If any action had been taken against such of those Medical Practitioners referred to above, it is needless to state that such action should be dropped forthwith pending further orders in the Writ petition." 27. For all the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. 28. In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed. For all the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. 28. In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are set aside. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The bail bond if any executed by him shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any paid by him shall be refunded to him.