JUDGMENT : JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J. 1. Learned Trial Court on 23.06.2012 convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short ‘the Act’). The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Petitioner’s appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.06.2012 and 29.06.2012, respectively, was dismissed by the learned 1st Appellate Court on 03.05.2019. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has assailed the above two judgments in the instant revision petition. 2. Facts in nutshell are that: (i) On 30.12.2004, the Drug Inspector in performance of his official duties, inspected premises of M/s Bhardwaj Clinic, Fatehpur, District Kangra. The inspection was carried out in presence of police official HHC Bishamber Singh (PW-2), Parkash Chand-Employee in the office of Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Kangra at Dharamshala (PW-3), Satish Singh (PW-1) and Mukesh Kumar-present there at the relevant time. The petitioner was found present in the clinic at that time. He represented himself to be the proprietor thereof. During inspection, several allopathic drugs were found to have been stocked for sale in the clinic. The petitioner could not produce Drugs Licence to stock allopathic drugs for sale. Petitioner also could not produce any valid Registered Medical Practitioner Certificate to practice allopathic system of medicine. The allopathic drugs found in the clinic were seized and collected in the box named as Fatehpur-I (Ext. P). The box was sealed with seal ‘NK’. Entry of the drugs was made in Form No. 16 (Ext. PW-4/B). The petitioner appended his signatures on the aforesaid exhibits. A copy of Form No. 16 signed by the witnesses, the complainant and the petitioner was also given to the petitioner/accused. After completing the codal formalities, the complaint under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act was lodged. (ii) Learned Trial Court framed notice of accusation against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (iii) The complainant examined himself as PW-4, Parkash Chand (Employee of CMO Office, Kangra at Dharamshala) as PW-3, HHC Bishamber Singh as PW-2 and Satish Singh (independent witness) as PW-1. Documentary evidence was also adduced. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (iii) The complainant examined himself as PW-4, Parkash Chand (Employee of CMO Office, Kangra at Dharamshala) as PW-3, HHC Bishamber Singh as PW-2 and Satish Singh (independent witness) as PW-1. Documentary evidence was also adduced. (iv) The petitioner/accused examined his father - Sh. Kishan Chand as DW-1. Certificate of practicing as Registered Medical Practitioner statedly issued in favour of petitioner’s father alongwith receipts of alleged renewal of this Medical Practitioner Certificate, were produced as Ext. DW1/B to Ext. DW1/D. (v) Learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties, held that the complainant had succeeded in establishing guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. The petitioner was accordingly convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act in terms of the judgment dated 23.06.2012 and vide order dated 29.06.2012, was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default clause. As observed earlier, learned 1st Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 03.05.2019. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below are against the facts and applicable legal position. That PW-2 to PW-4 were interested witnesses and had conspired against the petitioner. PW-3 in his cross-examination, specifically stated that before entering the clinic of the petitioner, the inspecting team had already registered three or four cases and had been carrying the case properties with them, whereas, statements of PW-2 and PW-4 differ on this aspect. Learned counsel further stated that in terms of the complaint and the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, 7/8 patients were there in the clinic at the time of inspection, however, none of the patients were made witnesses in the case. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that there was no legal evidence to connect the petitioner with the allegations levelled against him in the complaint. The judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below suffer from illegality and irregularity. Hence, intervention of this Court is called for. Prayer was accordingly made for accepting the revision petition. Learned Additional Advocate General defended the impugned judgments. The judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below suffer from illegality and irregularity. Hence, intervention of this Court is called for. Prayer was accordingly made for accepting the revision petition. Learned Additional Advocate General defended the impugned judgments. It was submitted that the presence of petitioner in the clinic at the relevant time stands proved on record. Petitioner had appended his signatures on Form No. 16. The recovery of allopathic drugs from the premises, thus, stands established. The petitioner had not offered any explanation regarding these aspects in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The case against the petitioner was proved beyond doubt, hence, both the learned Courts below justly convicted and sentenced him for the offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. 5. Observations: Having considered the rival submissions advanced on both sides and after going through the record, it becomes apparent that the complainant and the prosecution witnesses have been able to prove their case against the petitioner. (i) Complainant had inspected the clinic in question alongwith Police Official HHC Bishamber Singh and a Health Department Official-Parkash Chand. Two independent witnesses, namely Satish Singh and Mukesh Kumar, were also associated during inspection of the premises. Mukesh Kumar though was given up by the prosecution, however, Satish Singh was examined as PW-1. Bishamber Singh (PW-2), Parkash Chand (PW-3) and Satish Singh (PW-1) in their statements, corroborated the statement of the complainant (PW-4). (ii) Though there is some inconsistency in the statement of Parkash Chand (PW-3) and therefore, he was declared hostile, however, it is well settled principle that statement of hostile witness is not to be thrown out in its entirety simply on the ground that he had turned hostile. The statement, which is in conformity with the case of the complainant, can be taken into consideration to lend corroboration to the case of the complainant. Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2009 (Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), decided on 15th December, 2022, observed that there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon ‘hostile witness’ testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. The fact that a witness has been declared ‘hostile’ does not result in automatic rejection of his evidence. Satish Singh (PW-1) was joined by the complainant in the proceedings. The fact that a witness has been declared ‘hostile’ does not result in automatic rejection of his evidence. Satish Singh (PW-1) was joined by the complainant in the proceedings. He had signed Form No. 16 alongwith the box containing the drugs. Satish Singh stated that he was running a tea stall at Fatehpur. That on 30.12.2004, the petitioner was sitting in the clinic at the time of its inspection by the complainant-Drug Inspector. Though this witness denied that in his presence, allopathic drugs were taken into possession from the clinic of the petitioner and that Form No. 16 was prepared and the drugs were put in the box (Ext. P), but the fact remains that this denial is of no consequence as he had admitted his signatures over Form No. 16. This witness had also admitted that the Drug Inspector alongwith the police official had visited the clinic on 30.12.2004 and the petitioner was present in the clinic at that point of time. The witness had also admitted that the petitioner used to treat patients. The witness has not offered any explanation as to why he had signed the documents. The signatures of this witness, in English, at Ext. PW-3/A on Form No. 16, show that he is literate person. It cannot be expected that he would sign the documents without reading the same. It is, thus, obvious that Satish Singh (PW-1) had participated in the proceedings at the spot and in the manner stated by the complainant (PW-4), HHC Bishamber Singh (PW-2) and Parkash Chand (PW-3). (iii) The alleged inconsistency in the statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of number of seizures made by the complainant before carrying out the inspection of the premises in question, does not help the petitioner at all. Firstly, there appears to be no inconsistency between the statements of these three witnesses. PW-2 Bishamber Singh during his cross-examination, stated that no medicines were seized from the shops inspected by the team led by the premises of the petitioner. PW-3 Parkash Chand simply stated that some shops were inspected prior to the inspection of the clinic in question, however, he expressed his inability to recollect the fact about seizure of any medicines during the inspection of such shops. PW-3 Parkash Chand simply stated that some shops were inspected prior to the inspection of the clinic in question, however, he expressed his inability to recollect the fact about seizure of any medicines during the inspection of such shops. The complainant (PW-4) categorically stated that though medicines were seized even on the day of inspection of the premises in question, however, no seizure was made prior to inspecting petitioner’s premises. All the witnesses are unison in their version that there had been no seizure of medicines from any of the shops inspected by the inspecting team prior to the inspection of petitioner’s premises. Secondly, in any case, such statements even if held to be inconsistent, are not that material in the facts of the case, where petitioner’s presence at the spot, his projection of himself as the proprietor, his treatment of the patients sitting there with allopathic drugs and recovery of allopathic medicines without there being any authorization to stock and sell the same are established. (iv) The contention of the petitioner of prosecution having not examined any patient present in the premises will not advance his case in the facts and circumstances, where the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner from the statements of PW-1 to PW-4. The statement of the petitioner/accused under Section 313 Cr.PC only strengthens the case against him. (v) It will also be appropriate to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Represented by the Drugs Inspector vs. Manimaran, (2019) 13 SCC 670. The appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court arose out of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court, whereby the conviction of the respondent/accused under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was set aside. The Apex Court held that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings given by the learned Courts below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is different from the appellate jurisdiction. The High Court will not normally interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, unless the same are perverse or the Court has ignored the material evidence while arriving at the finding. The relevant extract from the judgment reads as under: “15. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is different from the appellate jurisdiction. The High Court will not normally interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, unless the same are perverse or the Court has ignored the material evidence while arriving at the finding. The relevant extract from the judgment reads as under: “15. Upon consideration of the evidence, both the trial court as well as the first appellate court convicted the respondent under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. When there are concurrent findings by the courts below, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is different from the appellate jurisdiction. The High court will not normally interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, unless the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below are perverse or that the court has ignored the material evidence while arriving at that finding. 16. As held in State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, ordinarily it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as by the Sessions Court in appeal. When the courts below recorded the concurrent findings of fact, in our view, the High Court was not right in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below and the impugned order cannot be sustained.” In view of law and proved facts, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act cannot be faulted. 6. Insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, as per proviso to Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, the Court may impose sentence of imprisonment for a term less than one year and a fine of less than Rs. 5000/-. In the instant case, the offence was committed on 30.12.2004. Almost 19 years have gone by. The petitioner has deposited the fine amount imposed upon him by the learned Trial Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused was not having any prior conviction under the Act. 5000/-. In the instant case, the offence was committed on 30.12.2004. Almost 19 years have gone by. The petitioner has deposited the fine amount imposed upon him by the learned Trial Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused was not having any prior conviction under the Act. The defence of the petitioner had been that his father was running the clinic and had a Certificate of Registered Medical Practitioner for Ayurvedic and Unani (Homeopathic) Medicines at one point of time, i.e. during the year 1972. 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances, in my considered view, in the interest of justice, proviso to Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act can be invoked and sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to 2 months and 12 days already undergone by him w.e.f. 22.09.2021 to 03.12.2021. 8. In the result, the conviction of the petitioner in terms of the judgment dated 23.06.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court, as affirmed by the learned 1st Appellate Court vide judgment dated 03.05.2019, is upheld. However, the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed upon him is reduced to 2 months and 12 days, while maintaining the fine of Rs. 5000/-. 9. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.