ORDER : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Instant Cr. Revision petition filed under S. 397 read with S. 401 CrPC, lays challenge to judgment dated 31.8.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur in Cr. Appeal No. 2 of 2006, whereby learned court below, affirmed the judgment/order of conviction dated 27.3.2006/28.3.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ani, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Case No. 1-3 of 2005, tilted as State of H.P. v. Ashish Majumdar, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 18(A) and 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter, 'Act'), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that on 5.8.2004, complainant Manish Kumar, PW-1, alongwith his Peon Murli Ram, PW-2, after having received instruction from the Drug Controller-cum-Licensing Authority, Shimla, who was in receipt of a complaint that the accused is running his clinic without valid licence and certificate of proper qualification, raided the private clinic being run by accused in the name and style of "Janta Clinic". Since the accused had stocked and exhibited large quantity of allopathic and Ayurvedic medicines in his clinic, complainant after giving his introduction to the accused, expressed his intention to inspect the clinic. On seeing complainant, people of Dalash got assembled outside the clinic. Complainant asked the accused to show a valid licence and documents of his qualification, under which he was practising medicine. But the accused was unable to produce the licence to stock medicines in the clinic as well as documents with regard to his qualification. Complainant seized two samples of drugs with assistance of Peon Murli Ram in a corrugated box and sealed with seal 'A' and took the same into possession. He also took two samples for purpose of testing and analysis against Form 17A Exhibit CW-1A and its receipt was given to the accused. Complainant after having prepared a detailed list Ext. Complainant seized two samples of drugs with assistance of Peon Murli Ram in a corrugated box and sealed with seal 'A' and took the same into possession. He also took two samples for purpose of testing and analysis against Form 17A Exhibit CW-1A and its receipt was given to the accused. Complainant after having prepared a detailed list Ext. PW-1/B of entire seized drugs from the clinic of accused, in the presence of independent witnesses Budh Ram and Chander Mohan, PW-3 and PW-4, respectively, applied to the competent court of law on 5.8.2004 for permission to retain the seized drugs in his safe custody (Exhibit CW-1/C). The court allowed the complainant to retain the seized drugs in safe custody. Subsequently the complainant sent a registered notice Ext. CW-1/D to the accused on 10.8.2004 asking him to produce relevant purchase record and documents of his qualification within a week but since the accused failed to produce the same, complainant intimated the matter to Drug Controller-cum-Licensing Authority, Shimla through speed post letter Ext. CW-1/E dated 23.8.2004, stating therein that the accused contravened provisions of S. 18(c) and 18(A) of the Act and Rules 1949, punishable under S. 27(b)(ii), 27(d) and 28(A) of the Act. Complainant after having received proper sanction to prosecute from the competent Authority, filed a complaint in the competent court of law. Court being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused put him notice of accusation for the commission of offence punishable under Ss. 18(A) and 18(c) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution with a view to prove its case, examined as many as four witnesses in total, whereas, opportunity was given to accused to lead evidence in defence, but he failed to avail the same. However, in his statement recorded under S. 313 CrPC, he denied case of prosecution in toto. In his aforesaid statement, accused took a stand that he did not stack and exhibit medicines and claimed himself to be innocent. 4. Learned trial Court, on the basis of entire evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led by prosecution, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under 18(A) and 18(c) and convicted and sentenced him as per description given above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment/order of conviction, accused preferred Cr. 4. Learned trial Court, on the basis of entire evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led by prosecution, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under 18(A) and 18(c) and convicted and sentenced him as per description given above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment/order of conviction, accused preferred Cr. Appeal No. 2 of 2006 before learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, however, the fact remains that the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 31.8.2009. in the aforesaid background, accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned courts below 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis the reasoning assigned by learned courts below, while holding the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under 18(A) and 18(c) of the Act, this court finds it difficult to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that his client has been falsely implicated and learned courts below have failed to read the evidence in its right perspective, rather, this court finds from the record that the accused neither had any valid licence to run the clinic nor he was qualified doctor or registered medical practitioner but yet he had opened clinic and was prescribing/administering drugs to the general public. Though learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused was having required qualification to practice in Ayurveda/alternative medicines, but it is not understood that what prevented him from producing the same in response to registered notice Exhibit CW-1/D issued by complainant to accused on 10.8.2004. Even if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that the accused was having valid licence to practice in alternative medicines/Ayurveda, there is no explanation on behalf of accused that in what capacity he was selling allopathic drugs in his clinic at the time of raid conducted by the complainant, PW-1. 6. As per prosecution, on receipt of complaint in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Kullu from Drug Controller-cum-Licensing Authority, Shimla that the accused was running private clinic in the name and style of "Janta Clinic" at Dalash, without licence and proper qualification, complainant conducted search and found allopathic and Ayurvedic drugs displayed on the shelves of clinic. 6. As per prosecution, on receipt of complaint in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Kullu from Drug Controller-cum-Licensing Authority, Shimla that the accused was running private clinic in the name and style of "Janta Clinic" at Dalash, without licence and proper qualification, complainant conducted search and found allopathic and Ayurvedic drugs displayed on the shelves of clinic. Search was conducted in the presence of local witnesses Budh Ram and Lambardar of Dalash as well as person namely Chander Mohan, proprietor of M/s. Vandana Medical Shop Dalash. Since the accused despite there being opportunity afforded to him failed to produce relevant record of purchase and qualification, complainant after having obtained necessary permission from the competent Authority, lodged complaint in the competent court of law. 7. With a view to prove notice of accusation, prosecution examined four witnesses. Drug Inspector, Manish Kumar, deposed on oath that he is posted as Drug Inspector for local limits of Kullu by State of Himachal Pradesh on 2.4.2002. He further deposed that he with the assistance of Peon, PW-2, visited Dalash in Government vehicle and found accused running private clinic in the name and style of "Janta Clinic". He deposed that after giving his introduction accused was asked to produce certificate of proper qualification to run the clinic and produce valid licence to sell Ayurvedic medicine, which were found kept on shelves of the clinic. He deposed that since the accused failed to produce the license and proper certificate of qualification to keep, stock, exhibit and sell the allopathic medicines to the general public in his clinic, he seized all the allopathic medicines kept by accused in his clinic and separated three samples from the medicines for testing and analysis and handed over two samples to the accused with the assistance of Murli Ram, PW-2 and put the same in the corrugated box and sealed the same with seal 'A' in the presence of CW-3 and CW-4. He deposed that on the same day he produced medicines before court and moved application to obtain permission to keep the seized medicines in his safe custody, which was allowed and custody of the sealed medicines from clinic was handed over to him. This witness further deposed that thereafter he served registered notice, Ext. He deposed that on the same day he produced medicines before court and moved application to obtain permission to keep the seized medicines in his safe custody, which was allowed and custody of the sealed medicines from clinic was handed over to him. This witness further deposed that thereafter he served registered notice, Ext. CW-1/D to the accused asking therein to produce his certificate of qualification to run the clinic and valid licence to keep, stock, exhibit and sell the allopathic medicines to the general public in his clinic but since he failed to produce the same within the prescribed period, he intimated the matter to Drug Controller-cum-Licensing Authority, Shimla vide speed post letter, seeking sanction to launch prosecution against accused, which was accorded by authority, vide Ext. CW-1/F. 8. Aforesaid version of complainant stands fully corroborated by CW-2 Murli Ram who deposed that on 5.8.2004, he was accompanying Drug Inspector, (complainant) from Kullu to Dalash in Government vehicle. If statement of this witness is read in its entirety, it is verbatim the same as has been stated by complainant CW-1 and as such, for the sake of brevity same is not being discussed herein. 9. Cross-examination conducted upon aforesaid witnesses if read in its entirety, nowhere suggests that defence was able to extract anything contrary to what this witness stated in his examination-in-chief. 10. Besides above, prosecution also examined Budh Ram as CW-3, who deposed that the accused is running medicine shop at Dalash. On 5.8.2004, complainant inspected shop and seized drugs, which were kept for sale to general public and prepared Ext. CW-1/A, which bears his signatures as well as of Chander Mohan CW-4. In his cross-examination by defence counsel, this witness admitted that CW-4 Chander Mohan is running a chemist shop in Dalash for the last 25 years. He feigned his ignorance that samples of which and what kinds of medicines were taken by complainant. 11. CW-4 Chander Mohan deposed that on 5.8.2004, complainant and his peon Murli Ram inspected Janta Clinic of the accused at Dalash and asked accused for proper certificate of qualification and licence to run the clinic and produce valid licence to keep, stock, exhibit and sell the allopathic medicines to the general public in his clinic, but the accused failed to produce the same. This witness deposed that subsequently the complainant and Murli Ram took possession of samples of allopathic drugs vide Ext. CW-1/A, which bears his signatures and that of Budh Ram and thereafter, Drug Inspector prepared Ext. cw-1/B. In his cross-examination this witness admitted that he is also running a chemist shop at Dalash for the last 25 years. This witness also admitted that the complainant also seized medicines from his shop but denied the suggestion that he is giving evidence against the accused on account of professional rivalry. 12. Learned counsel for the accused while referring to cross-examination upon complainant Manish Kumar vehemently argued that since complainant admitted that Drug Controller-cum-Licensing Authority, which had granted sanction to launch prosecution against accused is still in service, as such, there was no occasion for prosecution not to cite him as witness. Mr. Panwar also argued that there is no mention, if any, with regard to report of test analysis of drugs seized form clinic of accused as such, there is no evidence to show that allopathic medicines were seized from the clinic of accused on the date of alleged incident as such, no offence can be said to have been committed by the accused under S. 18(A) and 18(c) of the Act. Lastly, Mr. Panwar, argued that otherwise also, no reliance if any could be placed by learned court below on statement of CW-4 who admitted in cross-examination that he runs a chemist shop at Dalash. Mr. Panwar argued that CW-4 had professional rivalry against accused and his version being of interested witness could not be taken into consideration, while ascertaining guilt, if any of the accused. 13. However, this court having carefully scanned entire material available on record is not impressed with the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the accused because admittedly accused at no point of time was able to produce his certificate of proper qualification entitling him to run private clinic and licence issued by competent Authority to keep, stock and exhibit and sell the all medicines in his clinic. Since accused failed to produce documents with regard to his qualification as well as valid licence to keep, stock, exhibit and sell allopathic medicines in his clinic, he rightly came to be held guilty of having committed offence under Ss. 18(A) and 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 14. Since accused failed to produce documents with regard to his qualification as well as valid licence to keep, stock, exhibit and sell allopathic medicines in his clinic, he rightly came to be held guilty of having committed offence under Ss. 18(A) and 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 14. Section 18(A) and 18(c) of the Act read as under: 18(c) [manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale,] or distribute any drug 9 [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 conditions, of small quantities of any drug for the purpose of examination, test or analysis: Provided further that the 10[Central Government] may, after consultation with the Board, by notification in the Official Gazette, permit, subject to any conditions specified in the notification, the 11[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. [18A. Disclosure of the name of the manufacturer, etc.--Every person, not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall, if so required, disclose to the Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic.] 15. Section 18 (c) clearly provides that without valid licence a person cannot sell, distribute or stock or exhibit any drug or cosmetic. 16. Since in the case at hand, petitioner was neither qualified to run the clinic nor he had any valid licence to keep, stock, exhibit and sell the medicines to general public in his clinic, no illegality can be said to have been committed by learned courts below while holding him guilty of having committed offence punishable under aforesaid provisions of Act, punishable under S. 27(d)(ii) of the Act. 17. 17. Interestingly, this court finds from the record that at no point of time, suggestion if any came to be put to complainant that he did not ask the accused to produce certificate of proper qualification to run a clinic nor a single suggestion was put to prosecution witness that no opportunity was given to accused to produce licence to keep, stock, exhibit and sell all medicines to general public in his clinic. 18. Leaving everything aside three is no explanation rendered on record by accused that if he was in possession of valid licence as well as document with regard to qualification, what prevented him from producing the same before the complainant pursuant to notice Ext. CW-1/D dated 10.8.2004. Even today, learned counsel for the accused contended that at the time of alleged incident, accused was having valid licence to practice alternate medicines, meaning thereby he otherwise was not entitled to keep, stock, exhibit and sell the allopathic medicines to general public in his clinic. 19. In view of detailed discussion made above, this court finds no illegality or infirmity in the judgments of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned courts below which otherwise appear to be based on proper appreciation of evidence. But having taken note of the fact that alleged incident had taken place seventeen years ago, and thereafter the case remained pending before different courts of law, this court presuming that accused must have undergone continuous trauma, deems it fit to reduce the punishment awarded by learned court below. 20. S. 27 of the Act which provides for punishment for offence under Ss. 18(A) and 18(c), provides as under: 27(b)(ii) without a valid licence as required under clause (c) of section 18, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall 1 [not be less than three years but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more]: 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 2 [less than three years and of fine of less than one lakh rupees]; The proviso afore enables this court to award imprisonment for less than three years and fine of Rs. 1.00 Lakh for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment. 21. As has been taken note here in above, alleged incident took place seventeen years back and at that time, accused was 33 years, and in these years, accused has not only solemnised marriage but has a family to support. Moreover, this court especially enquired from learned Deputy Advocate General that whether after registration of case in 2004, any other complaint, if any was lodged against the accused but he informed that after registration of case at hand, no case ever came to be either reported or registered against the accused. Hence, otherwise, petitioner being first offender deserves some leniency. 22. Consequently in view of above, this court reduces period of imprisonment from one year to 15 days but that will be subject to deposit of Rs. 1.00 Lakh as fine. Impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Courts below are modified to the afore extent only. The petition stands accordingly disposed of alongwith pending applications if any. Accused is directed to surrender before learned trial Court to undergo the sentence as imposed in this judgment. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.