ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code (“Cr.P.C.” for short), who is the accused No.1 in C.C.No.496 of 2002, on the file of III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and unsuccessful appellant in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2006 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, challenging the judgment, dated 06.07.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2006, where under the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge dismissed the Criminal Appeal confirming the judgment, dated 09.01.2006 in C.C.No.496 of 2002 on the file of III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. The present Revision Petitioner faced trial before the trial Court for the contravention of the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and he was convicted and sentenced. Challenging the same, he filed Criminal Appeal before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and it was dismissed on merits. Hence, he filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 3. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred as described before the Court below for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the complainant before the Court below, in brief, is as follows: (i) L.W.1 is a Drug Inspector appointed under Section 21 of the Drugs and Customs Act, 1940. Presently he is working at Vijayawada. He has the jurisdiction for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. (ii) On 27.03.2002, basing on the information regarding the storage of Blood at Sangha Mitra Clinic, situated at D.No.29- 19-831, Dornakal Road, Vijayawada by Dr.V.Krishna Murthy, the Complainant-L.W.1 along with Sub-Inspector of Police-L.W.2 and two mediators raided the premises of Sangha Mitra Clinic at 06:15 pm and they found 22 filled blood bags and 60 X 10 units blood collection bags (CPDA-I) in a room, situated at the right side of the entrance of Sangha Mitra Clinic. Then the complainant seized the above stocks under Form-16 in the presence of the mediators under the cover of mediators report and obtained acknowledgment from A1. L.W.5-Dr.Sudhakar addressed a letter to the complainant stating that the entire building was taken for rent and the room where the blood seized was given to Dr.V.Krishna Murthy, proprietor of M/s. Sivani Blood Bank. A1 accepted that the stock belongs to him only and also accepted that he is not holding any license for the said premises. L.W.5-Dr.Sudhakar addressed a letter to the complainant stating that the entire building was taken for rent and the room where the blood seized was given to Dr.V.Krishna Murthy, proprietor of M/s. Sivani Blood Bank. A1 accepted that the stock belongs to him only and also accepted that he is not holding any license for the said premises. He further stated that he is the proprietor of M/s. Sivani Blood Bank. Then the complainant has informed the seizure to the Court of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada on 28.03.2002, as required under Section 23 (5) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and as per the direction, the complainant produced the property along with the complaint. The Sub-Inspector of Police recorded the statements of professional donors and on 28.03.2002 that Dr.V. Krishna Murthy submitted certified copy of cash and credit memo, dated 24.03.2002 of M/s. Sri Devi Diagnostic Distributes, Miryalaguda issued to M/s.Sivani Blood Bank with regard to 600 blood bags. On verification, it was found that the above firm is not in existence at the given address. On the basis of news item published in Eenadu Telugu daily, dated 02.04.2002 regarding un-official collection of blood by Dr.V.Krishna Murthy along with some others at Huzurnagar, Nalogonda District, the complainant contacted Drugs Inspector and came to know that the Sub- Inspector of Police, Huzurnagar Police Station, Nalgonda District, arrested A-1 for the illegal blood collection camp on the basis of the complaint lodged by Uppala Sri Hari, President of Varthaka Sangam. Then the complainant addressed a letter to the Inspector General, Drugs Control Administration, Hyderabad, for the cancellation of license of M/s. Sivani Blood Bank and requested to pass necessary orders to launch prosecution against Dr.V.Krishna Murthy. The complainant also sent a letter to A1 to furnish the particulars of the mode of payment and to furnish the records of the donors of the blood and the said letter was served in person, but he has not given any reply. The accused violated Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. He also violated Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, read with Section 27 (d) of the said Act. (iii) The learned III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, took the case on file under Section 18(c) read with 27(d) and 18(B) read with 28(D) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. He also violated Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, read with Section 27 (d) of the said Act. (iii) The learned III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, took the case on file under Section 18(c) read with 27(d) and 18(B) read with 28(D) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Originally, charges under Section 18 (c) read with 27(d) and 18 (B) read with 28 (A) were framed and explained to accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The complainant examined four (04) witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-16 and M.Os.1 and 2. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) on examination. Subsequently, charges were altered as follows before the trial Court. (i) The first altered charge is under Section 18(c) read with 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and (ii) The second altered charge is under Section 18(B) read with 28(A) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 6. Both sides did not let in any additional evidence regarding alteration of charges. 7. The learned III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, on hearing both sides and on consideration of oral as well as documentary evidence, found the guilt of the accused No.1 of charges and convicted him and after questioning about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two (02) months for the charge under Section 18 (c) read with 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and further sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (01) month for the charge under Section 18 (b) read with Section 28(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. However, the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, acquitted A2 i.e., M/s. Sivani Blood Bank, Propriety concern. Challenging the said order, the appellant No.1 had filed Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2006, on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and the same came to be dismissed on merits. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 8. However, the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, acquitted A2 i.e., M/s. Sivani Blood Bank, Propriety concern. Challenging the said order, the appellant No.1 had filed Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2006, on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and the same came to be dismissed on merits. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 8. Now in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned judgment, dated 06.07.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2006, on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the said judgment? Point:- 9. Sri Shaik Md. Ismail, learned counsel, representing learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that there was no evidence to prove that accused violated the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The premises wherefrom the blood bags were seized was not in exclusive possession of the accused. P.W.3 admitted that there is a way from his portion to the place where the blood bags were seized. There was no evidence that accused was selling the blood bags or those blood bags were meant for sale. The complainant did not take any steps to send the seized items to chemical analysis and there was no evidence that it was human blood. The blood has not come under the purview of the definition of drug according to the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The learned III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, did not appreciate the case of the petitioner. The blood bags seized would not come under the purview of drugs as defined under the Act. The room wherefrom the blood bags were seized could be construed as godown and petitioner got license to run the blood bank. He would further submit that the sentence imposed by the Court below against the Revision Petitioner is excessive. The trial Court relied on Ex.P12 which was not legally proved. He would submit that the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the decision in Mohd. Shabir vs. State of Maharashtra, (1979) I Supreme Court Cases 568, to support his contention. 10. The trial Court relied on Ex.P12 which was not legally proved. He would submit that the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the decision in Mohd. Shabir vs. State of Maharashtra, (1979) I Supreme Court Cases 568, to support his contention. 10. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, would submit that the petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case against the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as Appellate Court. The complainant adduced cogent evidence before the trial Court and the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, is with proper reasons, dismissing the appeal and the complainant proved both the charges against the petitioner with consistent evidence, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 11. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the accused was running Sivani Blood Bank and he stored 22 filled blood bags and 60x10 units blood collection bags in a room situated at the right side of the entrance of Sangha Mitra Clinic and he had no license whatsoever to store the same at the said premises. The further allegation is that the accused claimed that he purchased the same from M/s. Sridevi Diagnostic Distributors, Miryalaguda and when the complainant enquired, it proved to be false. Another allegation is that the accused did not maintain any record and when the complainant required the accused to substantiate the proof regarding the source of the drugs, he failed to comply it, as such, he further violated Section 18(B) and punishable under Section 28(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 12. P.W.1 before the Court below is the Drug Inspector. P.W.2 is the mediator, who accompanied P.W.1 at the time of raid conducted by P.W.1. P.W.3 is Dr.K. Sudhakar, who was examined by the complainant to prove that the room where from the blood bags were seized was in possession of the accused. P.W.4 is the then Drug Inspector, Nalgonda, who claimed to have made some enquiry at request of P.W.1 and found that M/s. Sri Devi Diagnostic Distributers, Miryalaguda is not inexistence. 13. P.W.3 is Dr.K. Sudhakar, who was examined by the complainant to prove that the room where from the blood bags were seized was in possession of the accused. P.W.4 is the then Drug Inspector, Nalgonda, who claimed to have made some enquiry at request of P.W.1 and found that M/s. Sri Devi Diagnostic Distributers, Miryalaguda is not inexistence. 13. The substance of the evidence of P.W.1 is that on 27.02.2002 on the basis of information provided by the police, Vijayawada, he along with Sub-Inspector of Police, L & O Governorpet Police Station and two witnesses B.V. Srinivas and M. Sudhakar raided the premises of Sanga Mitra Clinic, situated at D.No.29-19-831, Dornakal Road, Vijayawada. They found 22 filled blood bags and 60x10 units of blood collection bags in a room measuring about 10x10 at the right side of the entrance of the said Sangha Mitra Clinic. He seized the blood bags and blood collection bags under Form-16 under the cover of mediators report. Ex.P.1 is the copy of Gazette notification to show that he was authorized to launch prosecution. Ex.P.2 is the copy of licence of A.2 for running the blood bank. Ex.P.3 is Form-16. Ex.P.4 is the mediators report and served copies thereof on Dr. Krishna Murthy (A.1) and he obtained his acknowledgment on Form-16 and mediators report. Ex.P.5 is the acknowledgement on Ex.P.3, Form-16. They also acknowledged on Ex.P.4, mediators report. He intimated the seizure to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Then, he enquired Dr. Sudhakar of Dr. Sangha Mtra Clinic about the premises where the blood bags were seized. Dr. Sudhakar addressed a letter to him stating that the entire building was taken by him for rent and the room where the blood bags were seized was given to Dr. V. Krishna Murthy, Proprietor of M/s. Sivani Blood Bank and that he (Dr. Sudhakar) is no way concerned with the activity going on in that room. Ex.P.7 is the statement of Dr. Sudhakar. Ex.P.8 is the seizure intimation memo to the Court. A.1 at the time of seizure accepted that the stocks of blood bags and collection bags belonged to him, but, he has no license to the said premises. He revealed that he is the Proprietor of A.2 firm. Then, he (P.W.1) submitted the interim report to the Additional Director General, Drugs Controlling Administration, Hyderabad, vide letter, dated 28.03.2002. Ex.P.9 is the letter reporting the said issue. He revealed that he is the Proprietor of A.2 firm. Then, he (P.W.1) submitted the interim report to the Additional Director General, Drugs Controlling Administration, Hyderabad, vide letter, dated 28.03.2002. Ex.P.9 is the letter reporting the said issue. The Sub-Inspector of Police gave to him the statements of the professional blood donors. Ex.P.10 is the letter given by Sub Inspector of Police. Ex.P.11 is the statement of Palli David Raju. On 28.03.2002 A.1 submitted a certified copy of the cash memo No.20, dated 24.03.2002 of M/s. Sridevi Diagnostics Distributors, D.No.20-46, Satuluri Complex, Islampura Street, Miryalaguda, issued to M/s. Sivani Blood Bank for 600 empty blood collection bags of batch No.101321. Ex.P.12 is the copy of the invoice submitted by A.1. Then he requested the Drug Inspector, Nalgonda, to verify the correctness of Ex.P.12 and the Drug Inspector, Nalgonda, vide letter, dated 06.04.2002, intimated to him that the said M/s. Sridevi Diagnostic Distributors, Miryalaguda, is not inexistence. Ex.P.13 is the said letter. He further spoken about the so-called cases booked against A.1 by the Huzurnagar Police at Nalgonda. He also sent information seeking cancellation of drug licence to A2. Ex.P.14 is the letter addressed to Additional Director General, Administration, Hyderabad. He further testified that he addressed a letter to Dr.V. Krishna Murthy (A.1) under Section 18(B) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, requiring him to produce the mode of payment to the blood collection i.e., the bill, dated 24.03.2002 of M/s Sridevi Diagnostics Distributors, Miryalaguda and also to furnish the records and other particulars. Ex.P.15 is the letter. He got served the said letter on A.1 under acknowledgement, which is Ex.P.16. A.1 did not give any reply to the said notice. M.O.1 is the 60x10 units of blood each 350 ml. M.O.2 is 22x1x350 ml. blood bags. The licence was issued to firm at Dr.No.29-19-85 at Dornakal Road, Vijayawada. A.1 illegally stored blood collection bags at Dr.No.29-19-831, Dornakal Road, Vijayawada. 14. P.W.2, the mediator, supported the evidence of P.W.1. He spoken about the raid conducted by P.W.1 at Sangha Mitra Clinic, situated at Dornakal Road, S.R. Peta and that they went to the room at the right side of the clinic and found the blood bags. He further testified that the presence of A.1 was also secured at that time and A.1 stated that he has no license to store the said blood bags there. He further testified that the presence of A.1 was also secured at that time and A.1 stated that he has no license to store the said blood bags there. He further spoken about Form- 16 and seizure. 15. P.W.3 is Dr. K. Sudhakar, who testified that he is working as Assistant Professor of medicine in Government General Hospital, Vijayawada. He is running a clinic in the name of Sangha Mitra Clinic in Dornakal Road, which is rented and taken the same from one Satyanarayana. He also taken one of the portions consists of three rooms. He knows accused, who is his friend. Accused is running M/s.Sivani Blood Bank in the building, which is one building away from his clinic. Accused also taken one room by the side of his portion, which was taken from his owner. The Drug Inspector visited him on 27.03.2002. He issued Ex.P.7 letter. 16. P.W.4 is the Drug Inspector at Nalgonda, who spoken, in brief, about his visit of M/s.Sri Devi Diagnostic and Distributor, Miryalaguda and that he got to the address and found that the firm is not inexistence. He intimated the same to P.W.1 under Ex.P.13. He further spoken about the so-called case at Huzurnagar filed against the accused. 17. Now, it is appropriate to refer here the substance of some important documents exhibited by the complainant. 18. There is no dispute that according to Ex.P.1, P.W.1 is the Drug Inspector, who is authorized to launch prosecution, etc. As seen from Ex.P.2, it is Form-28(c) issued to Dr. V. Krishna Murthy (A.1) to run M/s. Sivani Blood Bank in the premises situated at Dr.No.29-19-85, Dornakal Road, S.R. Peta, Vijayawada. It is dated 30.03.2000. The contents of Ex.P.2 are not in dispute. As seen from Ex.P.3, it is Form-16, showing the visit made by P.W.1 on 27.03.2002 to Sanga Mthra Clinic, situated at Dr.No.29-19-831, Dornakal Road, Vijayawada and that they seized 60x10 blood collection bags each 350 ml. and 22-x1x350 ml. of blood bags. It is purported to have contained the signature of the accused. It is not in dispute during the cross examination. Ex.P.4, mediators report, reflects the things that were happened on 27.03.2002 at Sangha Mitra Clinic and it supports the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. It is said to have contained the signature of A.1 as a token of acknowledgment. It is purported to have contained the signature of the accused. It is not in dispute during the cross examination. Ex.P.4, mediators report, reflects the things that were happened on 27.03.2002 at Sangha Mitra Clinic and it supports the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. It is said to have contained the signature of A.1 as a token of acknowledgment. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that Form-16 under Ex.P.3 and mahazarnama under Ex.P.4 were served on the accused by due acknowledgement, has support from the contents of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. The evidence of P.W.3 is that he sent a letter to P.W.1 stating that he is running the clinic by name Sangha Mitra Clinic and he gave to Dr. V. Krishna Murthy (A.1) a room at the right side thereof on rent. It has support from Ex.P.7. Ex.P.8 is the seizure intimation to the Court. The complainant got marked Ex.P.12 stating that it was handed over by the accused to him stating that he purchased bags from M/s. Sri Devi Diagnostics Distributors, Miryalaguda. The case of the complainant is that the address mentioned in Ex.P.12 is proved to be incorrect and no such Diagnostics is located. 19. Another crucial document from the side of the complainant is that when the complainant addressed a letter under Ex.P.15 requesting the accused to furnish the records and other particulars of donors of 22 blood bags seized by him, he failed to produce the same. Ex.P.15 is said to have contained the signature of the accused. 20. During the cross examination of P.W.1, his signatures on the above referred documents are not denied. He got suggested to P.W.1 that by threat he obtained the statement of P.W.3 under Ex.P.7. Nothing is suggested to P.W.3 that he issued Ex.P.7 letter under threat. Accused had knowledge of the contents of Exs.P.3 and P.4. 21. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in my considered view establishes the fact that the room towards right side of Sangha Mithra Clinic was in possession of the accused. It is categorically proved by virtue of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. There is no dispute according to P.W.3 that the blood bank premises of the accused is one building away from Sangha Mithra Clinic. In my considered view, accused would not have kept quiet after signing Exs.P.3 and P.4, if the contents thereof are false. It is categorically proved by virtue of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. There is no dispute according to P.W.3 that the blood bank premises of the accused is one building away from Sangha Mithra Clinic. In my considered view, accused would not have kept quiet after signing Exs.P.3 and P.4, if the contents thereof are false. He would not have kept quiet having got knowledge of Ex.P.15, if the raid conducted by P.W.1 along with P.W.2 on 27.03.2002 was false. 22. The evidence on record categorically establishes the fact that on 27.03.2002 P.W.1 along with P.W.2 conducted a raid at Sangha Mithra Clinic bearing Door No.29-19-831 and in the right side of the said clinic, they found 22 filled blood bags containing human blood and 600 blood collecting bags and they have seized the same. So, by virtue of the above, the factum of raid by P.Ws.1 and 2 was proved. Further, the fact that the room wherefrom the above material was seized was in the possession of the accused was also proved by the complainant before the Court below. 23. There is no dispute that by virtue of Ex.P.2, the premises where the accused was supposed to store the blood is at Dr.No.29-19-85, Dornakal Road. There is also no dispute that A.2 was the Propriety concern and A.1 was the Proprietor. These facts are not at all in dispute. 24. Now, I would like to appreciate the contention of the Revision Petitioner that the complainant did not prove the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 from the conscious possession of the accused. It is to be noticed that there is categorical evidence of P.W.3 supporting the case of the complainant and his evidence is in tune with Ex.P.7. P.W.1 denied during cross examination that hospital and the room where the blood was seized belonged to P.W.3 and accused is not in exclusive possession. He entered into the room from the main entrance. He do not remember whether there are two doorways of the said room. When they reached the room, the room was locked. A.1 came and unlocked the room. The above answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1, goes to reveal that it is the A1, who unlocked the room. 25. He entered into the room from the main entrance. He do not remember whether there are two doorways of the said room. When they reached the room, the room was locked. A.1 came and unlocked the room. The above answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1, goes to reveal that it is the A1, who unlocked the room. 25. Apart from this, accused elicited certain answers from the mouth of P.W.3 in cross examination that the room is being used by their staff and also the staff of the accused and also they are dumping the scrap belongs to his hospital. He deposed that he and accused are using the room as common. He admitted that accused was running blood bank. In another building also, A.1 is having equipments to keep the blood. 26. In the light of the above answers, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor got elicited certain answers by putting questions which were expected to be put in cross examination and ultimately he admitted that room was in exclusive possession of accused and what he deposed in the cross examination earlier is not correct. Whatever the reason may be for such answers by P.W.3, but the fact remained is that accused had control over the room in question. He kept quiet all through having received Exs.P.3 and P.4 and Ex.P.15. He was physically present for assisting P.W.1 in unlocking the room. The complainant has adduced cogent evidence before the Court below that the room was in exclusive possession of the accused. 27. The accused before the Court below agitated that Ex.P.12 was not issued by him. It is very difficult to accept such contention. When the accused was physically present at the time of visit made by P.Ws.1 and 2 and when he acknowledged Exs.P.3 and P.4 knowing the contents fully it is quite natural that P.W.1 asked the accused to provide information as to the source of obtaining M.Os.1 and 2. So, it cannot be held that Ex.P.12 was fabricated by the complainant. There is evidence of P.W.4 that the information provided by the accused in Ex.P.12 proved to be false. So, it cannot be held that Ex.P.12 was fabricated by the complainant. There is evidence of P.W.4 that the information provided by the accused in Ex.P.12 proved to be false. Though Ex.P.12 did not contain the signature of accused, but, having regard to his presence at the time of raid and his silence after receiving Exs.P.3, P.4 and P.15, I am of the considered view that the evidence of P.W.1 that the information provided by accused in Ex.P.12 proved to be false is believable. 28. It is to be noticed that P.W.1 addressed a letter under Ex.P.15 requiring the accused to provide information pertaining to the source of 22 blood bags and mode of payment to purchase 600 bags. Accused having knowledge of Ex.P.15, failed to provide the requisite information as provided under Section 18(B) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. In my considered view, the factual aspects as averred by the complainant are quietly proved with consistent evidence. In my considered view, the complainant has proved the raid conducted by P.W.1 in the Company of A.2 at Sangha Mithra Clinic bearing Door No.29-19-831 and further proved the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 in the room which was in exclusive occupation of the accused. 29. The further contention of the Revision Petitioner is that the blood does not come under definition of Drug in view of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 30. 29. The further contention of the Revision Petitioner is that the blood does not come under definition of Drug in view of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 30. Section 3(b) deal with the Drug, which runs as follows: 9 [(b) “drug” includes— 10 [(i) all medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease or disorder in human beings or animals, including preparations applied on human body for the purpose of repelling insects like mosquitoes;] (ii) such substances (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the human body or intended to be used for the destruction of 11 [vermin] or insects which cause disease in human beings or animals, as may be specified from time to time by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette;] 12 [(iii) all substances intended for use as components of a drug including empty gelatin capsules; and (iv) such devices intended for internal or external use in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease or disorder in human beings or animals, as may be specified from time to time by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, after consultation with the Board;] 31. As seen from the definition of drug, it is inclusive definition. It is not a narrow definition. While Section 3(b)(i) includes all medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease or disorder in human beings or animals, the other provisions i.e., (ii) (iii) (iv) enumerates other instances where they can be taken as drugs. Here the clause (iii) is important. So, according to clause (iii), all substances intended for use as components of a drug including empty gelatin capsules can be construed as drug. 32. Coming to the case on hand, there is no denial of the fact that the usage of human blood obtained or collected, clinic is only for the purpose of transfusion to human beings for the treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease. So, it attracts clause (iii) i.e, all substances intended for use. So, drug need not be medicine either in the form of tablet or liquid for human consumption. So, it attracts clause (iii) i.e, all substances intended for use. So, drug need not be medicine either in the form of tablet or liquid for human consumption. On the other hand, any substance which can be used as components of a drug can be construed as drug. Hence, the contention of the Revision Petitioner that blood cannot be brought under the purview of drug, deserves no merits. There is no denial of the fact that presently transfusion of matching human blood of the same group is now a well known recognized treatment adopted by the medical profession for treatment and prevention of certain diseases. Therefore, it is fully understood by looking into Section 3(b) that human blood comes within the inclusive definition of drug. 33. Coming to the contention of the revision petitioner that P.W.1 did not send 22 blood bags seized to the Chemical examination, P.W.1 during the course of cross examination deposed that he did not send the blood for report whether the same was in fit condition for use or whether it is human blood or not. Nothing was suggested to P.W.1 during further cross examination that 22 blood bags seized from him was not containing human blood and it was of a different material. It is to be noticed that the complainant has categorically proved the possession of M.Os.1 and 2 with that of accused and it was further proved that accused stored the same. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that when the nature of the material that was seized from A.1 was not in dispute, the accused cannot contend that non-sending of 22 blood bags to the Chemical analysis is fatal to the case of the complainant. In my considered view, such a contention advanced by the accused before the Court below and before the appellate Court was negatived by both Courts with proper reasons and I do not find any merits in this regard. 34. Another contention of the Revision Petitioner is that the mere possession of M.Os.1 and 2 would not make out any offence and to constitute the offence under Section 18(c) r/w 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, complainant should prove that the accused stocked the blood for the purpose of sale and there was no evidence adduced by the complainant that it was meant for the purpose of sale. 35. 35. Admittedly, the language employed in Section 18(c) coupled with Section 27(b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is that it makes an offence if anybody manufactures for sale or for distribution or sells or stocks or exhibits or offer for sale or distribute any drug. Here the case of the complainant is that the premises i.e., room where M.Os.1 and 2 were seized was not mentioned in Ex.P.2, licence granted to the accused. Absolutely, Ex.P.2 is not covering the room where M.Os.1 and 2 were seized. The complainant case is that M.Os.1 and 2 were seized from the room which was in possession of the accused when they were stored. 36. In Mohd. Shabir’s case (supra), admittedly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, held at para No.4 as follows: “We, therefore, hold that before a person can be liable for prosecution or conviction under Section 27(a)(i)(ii) read with Section 18(c) of the Act, it must be proved by the prosecution affirmatively that he was manufacturing the drugs for sale or was selling the same or had stocked them or exhibited the articles for sale. The possession simpliciter of the articles does not appear to be punishable under any of the provisions of the act. If, therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 27 are not satisfied the plea of guilty cannot lead the Court to convict the appellant.” 37. This Court has carefully considered the above said decision. In the above said case, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant thereof was caught hold at Bhusawal railway station with 17 plastic containers containing 17,000 white coloured tablets, for which he had no license. Dealing with the language employed in Section 27 of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the possession simpliciter of the articles does not appear to be punishable under the Act because there was no evidence that he stocked them for the purpose of sale. In the above said case, the appellant canvassed the contention that there was no evidence that he had any shop or he was distributing agent, as such, there was no possibility to him to exhibit or to stock for the purpose of sale, etc. In the above said case, the appellant canvassed the contention that there was no evidence that he had any shop or he was distributing agent, as such, there was no possibility to him to exhibit or to stock for the purpose of sale, etc. The Hon’ble Supreme Court appreciated the above said contention and held that the possession simpliciter of the articles does not appears to be punishable under any of the provisions of the Act. 38. In this regard, before going to appreciate, this Court would like to clear that the above said contention was also canvassed before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada relied upon a decision in Shaik Amir vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 469 , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with large quantity of misbranded drug found in the possession of accused held that it left no room for about that he had stocked or kept it for sale and it could not have meant for his personal use. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge distinguished as above and ultimately held that the accused herein stored the same for the purpose of sale. 39. Now, coming to the case on hand, even Ex.P.2 discloses that accused had license to run Sivani Blood Bank at the premises bearing Dr.No.29-19-85, Dornakal Road, Vijayawada. It is evident from the evidence of P.W.3 that it is one building faraway from Sangha Mithra Clinic. The facts in Shaik Amir’s case (2 supra) were that the appellant therein had no shop and he was not a distributing agent. Here, the Revision Petitioner has a blood bank just nearby Sangha Mithra Clinic. He had possession over the place wherefrom M.Os.1 and 2 were seized. So, it is very clear that when the accused was running a blood bank and stored 22 bags of human blood and further stored 600 empty blood collecting bags for which he failed to account for the source of getting those M.Os.1 and 2, no other inference is possible except the inference that the accused stored the same for the purpose of sale. Accused would not have stored such huge blood bags for the purpose of fancy or fun. 40. Storing blood bags is an act on the part of the accused. Whether he stored it for sale, etc., is to be inferred from the circumstances only. Accused would not have stored such huge blood bags for the purpose of fancy or fun. 40. Storing blood bags is an act on the part of the accused. Whether he stored it for sale, etc., is to be inferred from the circumstances only. There would not be any direct evidence to prove what is there in the mind of the accused in storing such huge quantity of blood bags. So, the fact that accused stored the same for sale is to be gathered from the proven facts only. So, the intention of the accused can be gathered from the proven facts such as that he has a blood bank nearby the place where he stored the blood bags and further looking into possible explanation if any given by the accused. Accused has no possible explanation. He failed to respond to request under Ex.P.15. So, all these circumstances, un-erredly points out that the act of the accused in storing the same is only meant for sale ultimately. Therefore, in my considered view, the prosecution has categorically proved the essential ingredients of Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. 41. Another contention raised by the Revision Petitioner is that even otherwise as the accused had a valid licence under Ex.P.2 to run the blood bank, the place wherefrom the M.Os.1 and 2 were seized could be construed as a Godown. It is very difficult to accept such contention. The contents of Ex.P.2 are not in dispute which shows that accused had license to run blood bank in premises bearing Door No.29-19-85 and complainant proved the possession of the accused over the room in question in D.No.29-19-831. So, it cannot be held that the place where the blood bags were recovered could be presumed to be a Godown. 42. Turning to the charge under Section 18(B) punishable under Section 28(A) of the Act, when the complainant addressed Ex.P.15 to the accused requiring him to provide certain information with regard to mode of payment to 600 bags and further necessary material with regard to 22 blood bags, accused failed to respond. So, the complainant further proved the violation of Section 18(B) punishable under Section 28(A) of the Act. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, does not suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety. 43. So, the complainant further proved the violation of Section 18(B) punishable under Section 28(A) of the Act. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, does not suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety. 43. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the complainant before the Court below categorically proved the charges framed against the accused. In my considered view, the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, does not suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety. 44. Now, coming to another contention of the revision petitioner that the sentence imposed against him is excessive, this Court is of the considered view that as on the date of raid conducted by P.W.1, the offence under Section 27(b) (ii) 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. Further it is no doubt true that for the offence punishable under Section 28(A), the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, imposed fine because the penal provision is imprisonment or fine. It is a case where this Criminal Revision Case is pending since 2007. Looking into the age particulars of the accused furnished by the complainant before the Court below, at present accused must have been in the age group of 60. Here the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the charge under Section 18(c) r/w 28(b)(ii), convicted the accused to imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. 45. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, the ends of justice will meet, if the imprisonment imposed against the petitioner for the charge under Section 18(c) r/w 27 (b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, is modified that of one year which was minimum punishment provided thereof. Having regard to the same, this Court is convinced to modify the imprisonment imposed under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act to that of one year instead of two years. 46. Having regard to the same, this Court is convinced to modify the imprisonment imposed under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act to that of one year instead of two years. 46. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the Revision Petitioner under Section 18(c) r/w 27 (b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act as that of one year instead of two years and the rest of the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, dated 06.07.2007 in Crl.A.No.10 of 2006, shall stands confirmed. 47. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the petitioner/appellant and to report compliance to this Court. 48. The Registry is further directed to send the copy of the record along with lower Court record on or before 20.02.2023 without fail. A copy of this order shall be placed before the Registrar (Judicial) for giving appropriate instructions to the concerned in the Registry. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.