ORDER : 1. By way of instant Revision petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 28.08.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 56 of 2011, whereby judgment dated 29.8.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur in case No. 40-1 of 2008 convicting and sentencing petitioner for offences under Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 has been affirmed. 2. The Drug Inspector, Hamirpur, H.P. filed Complaint No. 40-1/2008 against petitioner alleging inter-alia that petitioner was found selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale allopathic drugs without valid license. As per Drug Inspector, he inspected the premises of petitioner on 04.04.2006 and found petitioner running a Clinic-cum- Medical Store under the name and style of M/s Thakur Clinic at Village and Post Office Balduhak, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. Large number of allopathic medicines were found in the business premises of petitioner being exhibited for sale. Petitioner could not produce valid license for such exhibition or sale of allopathic drugs. The Drug Inspector, seized all allopathic drugs found in the premises of the petitioner. Prepared its inventory in Form No.16 and sealed them in two separate cardboard cartons. Independent witnesses were associated, in whose presence seizure and sealing procedure was concluded. Later, petitioner was afforded an opportunity by Drug Inspector to submit the license, if any, to exhibit for sale allopathic drug, but the petitioner failed to do so, hence the complaint for commission of offences under Section 18(c) and 18-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 3. The Drug Inspector examined himself and three other witnesses to prove the allegation against the petitioner. CW-2 Chaman Lal, CW-3 Sukh Dev and CW-4 Rakesh Kumar, were examined as independent witnesses, but none of them supported the prosecution case. Petitioner was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner also examined one Subhash Chand as defence witness. 4. Learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner was also convicted for offence under Section 28 of the Act, ibid and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner was also convicted for offence under Section 28 of the Act, ibid and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. Petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court by filing an appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, but remained unsuccessful. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide impugned judgment and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by learned Trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 7. Learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner on the sole testimony of the complainant/Drug Inspector. It was held that the petitioner had failed to prove any purpose or motive with the Drug Inspector to falsely implicate him, therefore, the testimony of the complainant/Drug Inspector could not be doubted. 8. Learned Appellate Court while affirming the findings returned by learned Trial Court further held that the independent witnesses, though had turned hostile, their testimonies could not be discarded as a whole as these witnesses had admitted their signatures on recovery memo Ext. CW-1/D and the sealed boxes Ext. CW-1/E-1 and E-2 and further had failed to render any plausible explanation for having signed such documents. Finding corroboration to the version of complainant from statements of witnesses CW-2 to CW-4 in aforesaid manner, learned Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner as imposed by learned Trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgments passed by both the Courts below suffer from grave illegality being against cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence. He submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the judgments passed by learned Courts below on the ground that the conclusion as to guilt of the petitioner has been rightly drawn after appreciation of evidence. 11. The case as set-up by Drug Inspector was that he visited the business premises of the petitioner on 04.04.2006. Initially, he was alone. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the judgments passed by learned Courts below on the ground that the conclusion as to guilt of the petitioner has been rightly drawn after appreciation of evidence. 11. The case as set-up by Drug Inspector was that he visited the business premises of the petitioner on 04.04.2006. Initially, he was alone. He found allopathic drugs exhibited for sale in the business premises of the petitioner without any license or permission. 12. Complainant/Drug Inspector examined himself as CW-1. In his examination-in-chief, CW-1 remained totally silent as to at what stage and in what manner, he associated the independent witnesses. He only stated that he made an inventory of the allopathic drugs found from the store of the petitioner in Form No.16. The seized drugs were sealed in two separate cardboard cartons in presence of the witnesses who appended their signatures on such boxes. 13. CW-1 did not state that he had seized allopathic drugs in presence of witnesses and that the witnesses had signed inventory Form No. 16, Exhibit CW1/D. Perusal of the document Ext. CW1/D reveals that this document runs in two pages and the contents written on second page are in fact on the reverse of first page. The signatures of Sukh Dev are on top left margin of first page and signatures of Caman Lal are on the bottom of the first page on left side. Signatures of Rakesh Kumar are on the bottom of second page on left side. Thus, there is no set pattern of getting the signatures of the witnesses on the document. It appears that either the witnesses were made to sign Ext. CW1/D at such places where some spaces were left after writing its contents or the signatures were so obtained on blank papers so as to have sufficient blank space to scribe the contents at ease. Had the document been written in presence of witnesses, the scribe must be mindful of the fact that it was being witnessed by others who were also to sign the same. With such thought in mind sufficient and proper space would have been left for witnesses to append their respective signatures on each of the page. The manner of execution of document creates doubt regarding seizure being made in presence of independent witnesses. With such thought in mind sufficient and proper space would have been left for witnesses to append their respective signatures on each of the page. The manner of execution of document creates doubt regarding seizure being made in presence of independent witnesses. CW-2 to CW-4 have stated that no recovery was affected in their presence and their signatures were taken subsequently. As per CW-2, he had signed Ext. CW1/D and other documents at Sharma Medical Store, Hamirpur and document was blank, when he had appended his signature thereon. Similarly, CW-3 has rendered the explanation that he had signed the document Ext. CW1/D at District Hospital, Hamirpur, H.P. on the asking of a Medical Representative named as Rinku. CW-4 Rakesh Kumar also stated that he had signed blank document in good faith. 14. To prove the signatures of witnesses on a document is quite distinct from proving the authenticity of contents of the documents. It has to be suggestive from all attending circumstances that the witnesses had appended their signatures on the document after witnessing the facts detailed therein. The purpose of association of independent witnesses in a criminal investigation is to lend authenticity to the version of the prosecution. Thus, keeping in view the entirety of attending circumstances, explanation rendered by CW-2 to CW-4 for appearance of their signatures on document Ext. CW1/D and Ext. CW-1/E-1 to CW-1/E-2 could not have been brushed aside lightly. 15. Even otherwise, document Ext. CW1/D needs to be looked at with circumspection for the reason that CW-1 did not state that that he had incorporated the factum of the seizure of documents Ext. CW-1/C-1 to C-27 in memo Ext. CW1/D, nor had such fact been suggested to CW-2 to CW-4 while being cross-examined by complainant. Noticeably, such insertion at serial No. 31 of page No.2 of document Ext. CW-1/D, on the face of it, appears to been made subsequently. This apparently has been done to overcome the omission to prepare separate memo regarding recovery of documents Ext. CW1/C-1 to C-27. Had the Drug Inspector carried his inspection in the presence of independent witnesses, the seizure of documents Ext. CW1/C-1 to C-27 would also have been in presence of such witnesses. Such hypothesis is, however, belied by the fact that documents Ext. CW1/C-1 to C-27 do not bear the signatures of any of the independent witnesses. CW1/C-1 to C-27. Had the Drug Inspector carried his inspection in the presence of independent witnesses, the seizure of documents Ext. CW1/C-1 to C-27 would also have been in presence of such witnesses. Such hypothesis is, however, belied by the fact that documents Ext. CW1/C-1 to C-27 do not bear the signatures of any of the independent witnesses. Further, it has also not been proved that the documents Ext. CW-1/C-1 to C-27 were either in the handwriting of petitioner or were prepared under his instructions. 16. Another fact that cannot be brushed aside is that out of three independent witnesses, two witnesses i.e. CW-3 and CW-4 were not from the same village what to talk of same locality. There is no explanation, as to how, the Drug Inspector was able to procure the presence of witnesses who evidently were from other villages. There is also no explanation as to why, the petitioner did not associate the witnesses from same locality. This again creates doubt on the story put forth by Drug Inspector. 17. Prosecution carried a very heavy burden to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. This could only be possible had the evidence produced by it been so confidence inspiring as to negate the possibilities of all other hypothesis than the guilt of accused. However, in light of observations made hereinabove, there were many gaps in the prosecution story which remained unexplained. Thus, when two views appear to be possible, the view favourable to the accused has to be given precedence. 18. In light of above discussion, the revision petition is allowed. Judgment dated 28.08.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 56 of 2011 and judgment dated 29.8.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur in case No. 40-1 of 2008 convicting and sentencing petitioner for offences under Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 are set-aside. Petitioner is acquitted of all the charges. 19. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.