ORDER : The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant State against the order dated 28.11.2015 passed by the court of learned Principal District & Sessions, Judge, Shopian, in Complaint No. 01/Comp titled “State through Drug Inspector Vs. Mohd Ashraf Shah and another” passed in complaint u/s 18 (c) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with 32 (i) 27 (b) (ii). Initially the compliant was registered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shopian and as the offences were exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. 2. The facts of the case as put forth by the complainant, in brief, are as follows: 3. The complainant is the Drug Inspector who, on a routine inspection of Shopian area has inspected the premises which was running under the name and style M/S Tabish Medical Store situated at Arhama Shopian and found that one Mohammad Ashraf Shah resident of Bongam is the proprietor and Arshid Ahmad lone is the salesman of the said premises and they have been indulging in the stocking, exhibiting for sale and selling drugs and medicines by way of retail. It is further alleged that the accused Mohd Ashraf Shah (hereinafter referred as A1) has been directed to furnish the documents required by the complainant, but he failed to do so and accordingly, Drugs alongwith bills were seized on 20.12.2011. Sanction for prosecution of the accused persons was obtained from Controller Drugs and Food Control Organization vide letter No. DF/DRUGS/479/0818 dated 03.01.2012 and, thereafter, the complaint was filed to take action against the accused persons u/s 27 (b) (ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940. Thereafter, the complainant was directed to produce his witness. Besides himself, he has produced only one other witness. The right of adducing evidence of the prosecution was closed on 03.02.2014. The statement of the accused persons have been recorded on 18.07.2014 and, thereafter, they were given an opportunity to adduce evidence in defence. 4. The Gist of the statement of the witnesses are as under:- P.W.1 Bilal Ahmad Rather (Drug Inspector) on 20.12.2011, who went to Tabish Medical Store, Arhama Shopian and examine the shop. He found the salesman Arshid Ahad there. The owner of the shop was not present there at that time. The witness took some items from the shop and also seized some bills. He found the salesman Arshid Ahad there. The owner of the shop was not present there at that time. The witness took some items from the shop and also seized some bills. The bills that were seized were in the name of Tabish Medical Store. The medicines which were present there were taken by the Drug Inspector which comprised of Injections and other medicines. 5. On cross examination P.W.1 says the shop which the witness has examined is being run since a long time. He, however, says that he did not take any photographs of the shop while making the seizure. He also says that many people assembled on the spot but none of them came forward to record their statements. His knowledge that A1 is the owner of the shop was on the basis of the statement made by the salesman Arshad Ahad (hereinafter referred as A2). In other words, the witness did not have any independent source of information by way of any document to show that A1 was the proprietor of the shop. The witness further states that he did not seize any ledger from the shop concerned but bills have been seized. It is relevant to state here that the nature of the bills have not been described by the witness. The witness further states that A1 is having licenses to rune other medical shop and that he is running the medical shop in question and, on account of that, P.W.1 knows A1 personally. He further states the license that has been given to A1 for runninga shop outside the hospital and that the name of the shop is Amir Medical Store and that A1 is the owner of the that shop as well, for which he has license for selling medicines from the said shop. 6. P.W.2 Ashiq Hussain Bhat Drug Inspector Shopian, who has deposed that the witness is the Drug Inspector and that his work is to check the markets as to whether Drug Stores are having licenses to operate. He says that the occurrences are of 11th November but he has not given year and that the witness was checking near Arhama, where one shop was operating in style as Tabish Medical Store. At the store, this witness says he demanded license from the accused (A2) but he declined to show the licenses. He says that the occurrences are of 11th November but he has not given year and that the witness was checking near Arhama, where one shop was operating in style as Tabish Medical Store. At the store, this witness says he demanded license from the accused (A2) but he declined to show the licenses. The witness issued a notice to the accused on spot on 20th December, 2011. Bilal Ahmad Rather (PW1) was accompanying the witness. On that day also he says the shop was being run without license. This witness also says that on that day some bills and medicines were seized and that the medicines were tablets and injections. He further says that the Seizure memo was prepared on spot. The witness further states that A2 refused to receive the Seizure memo and notice as he is not the owner of the shop. A2 has put his thumb impression on the seizure memo. 7. On being cross examined, this witness has stated that he has no knowledge regarding the date from which the accused No. 1 is having the licenses to run the shop. He further says that he knows accused No. 1 very well and that he has shop in the name of Amir Medical Store which is running outside the District Hospital, Shopian, and the witness has knowledge of the same. He further says that the said shop is licensed and the license has been issued by the office of the witness in favour of the A1. He further says that on 20.12.2011 when he went to the shop at Arhama, A1 was not present at shop but A2 was present and from the statement of A2, the witness came to know that the name was Mohammad Ashraf (A2). He further states that on the day of incident only A2 was present in the shop and that he has not seized any ledger or computer or any Doctors prescription and has not seen any patient there and also did not see any person purchasing medicine from that shop. This witness further states that he got sanction for prosecution from the Department against both of the accused persons. 8. In the course of the trial, the respondents herein examined D.W. Jehangir Ahmad Thoker R/o Ratnipora Shopian. This witness further states that he got sanction for prosecution from the Department against both of the accused persons. 8. In the course of the trial, the respondents herein examined D.W. Jehangir Ahmad Thoker R/o Ratnipora Shopian. He is a Lab Technician, who deposes that he knows A1 but does not know A2, and as the witness is running the shop of Lab. Technician outside the hospital from last 10 years, he knows A1. He further states that inside the Hospital at Shopian, there is one Fair Price Medical Shop under the control of a Cooperative Society and A1 has another shop inside the hospital which has been allotted by the Hospital Management in favour of the A1 which is presently running, on which the Inspector Ashiq Hussain (PW2) had reservations and was desirous that the said shop should not be competing with the Cooperative shop inside the hospital. He further states that there is a dispute between the two fair price shops of Cooperative and that of A1. There was also altercation of words between the two. He further states that the A1 was not running a shop in Arhama Shopian. 9. On cross examination, the defence witness states that he has knowledge to the effect that A1 is running Medical Shop within the hospital and the witness has come out of his own to give the statement before the court. This witness also states that there was strained relationship between the PW2 and A1. 10. The second witness is Arshad Ahmad Dar R/o Arhama Shopian, who states that he knows A2 but does not know A1-Mohd Ashraf. He further states that A2 has not started any shop in Arhama Shopian till date. On cross examination, the witness has deposed that he has come on his own to the court and that the accused were not running any Medical Shop in Arhama. 11. D.W. Parvaiz Ahmad Beigh, R/o Shopian, who states that he was running a Medical Shop outside the Shopian and that he knows accused present in the court. This witness further says that from last 2 to 4 years, A2 is working in his shop and that he is working as a runner and gets the medicines from Srinagar and also from other Distributors. He also says that A2 has no shop of his own in Arhama. This witness further says that from last 2 to 4 years, A2 is working in his shop and that he is working as a runner and gets the medicines from Srinagar and also from other Distributors. He also says that A2 has no shop of his own in Arhama. This witness also reveals that there is a dispute between the two Fair Price Medical Shops, one run by the Cooperative and the other of A1 and to that effect a civil case is sub judice before the court of the Sub-Judge. He further states that the Hospital Authorities are interested in running of one Fair Price Shop under the control of A1 and not the Fair Price Shop run by the Cooperative. 12. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court has considered the conflicting views of the complainant and the accused. The Trial Court has referred to the statement of P.W.1 and found that PW1 is not certain if the Drugs that were produced before the court were in the possession of Drug Inspector (PW2) and has also stated that he has not signed any seizure memo while, the perusal of the same reflects that the witness had put his signature upon the seizure memo. The court has also taken cognizance of the fact that it was only upon disclosure made by A2 that the identity of A1 as the owner of the shop became known to PW1 and PW2. Thereafter, the court arrives at the finding that the witness has not put any personal effort for tracing the owner of the shop and has relied only of the statement of A2. 13. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court refers to the statement of PW2, who is the complainant in this case, where he says that in the first instance A1 was present on the spot but changes the version in cross examination by saying that A1 was not present at the shop but it was only A2 who was present. Further the Trial Court observed that PW2 states that sanction has been obtained against both the accused persons. On the file the sanction has only been obtained against A1, but not against A2. Thereafter, the Trial Court has questioned the case of the complainant as to how A2 has been arrayed as accused when no sanction was taken to prosecute him. On the file the sanction has only been obtained against A1, but not against A2. Thereafter, the Trial Court has questioned the case of the complainant as to how A2 has been arrayed as accused when no sanction was taken to prosecute him. Upon this, the Trial Court has arrived at the finding that there was a vengeful attitude on the part of the complainant to implicate A1. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court relies upon the statement of this witness that he has not put signatures on the seizure memo but has only put his seal which according to learned Trial Court has rendered the seizure memo doubtful. 14. The learned Court below also arrives at the finding that the PW2 has no documentary proof that Mohd Ashraf Shah-A1 is the proprietor of Tabish Medical Store, Arhama and, thereafter, poses a question to itself as to how the witness has come to the conclusion that A1 is the proprietor of Tabish Medical Store. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant-Union Territory, has submitted that the learned Trial Court fell into error in acquitting A1 & A2 in this case. He further submits that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He further argues that Tabish Medical Store was never registered and, therefore, was not on the record of the Department. He further submits that A2 had informed the Drug Inspector that the shop belongs to A1. Learned counsel further submits that as the genesis of the case is based upon the complaint filed by the Drug Inspector, Section 25 of the Evidence Act would not apply and the confession made by the A2 to PW1 could be used against him and A1. He further states that the same would also be a sufficient evidence to show that A1 was the proprietor of the shop. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant-Union Territory further contended that the seizure of the bills which are in the name of Tabish Medical Store also go to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that A1 & A2 had purchased theses medicines from the stockiest/Distributors for the purpose of retail sale. As regards the absence of the statement of any independent purchaser from the shop or others from the locality, learned counsel for the Union Territory submits that same was never essential. As regards the absence of the statement of any independent purchaser from the shop or others from the locality, learned counsel for the Union Territory submits that same was never essential. He further submits that as stated by PW2 in the court testimony, no one came forward voluntarily to give a statement to PW2. Further he has stated that it is trite law that it is not the number of witnesses that are required to prove the case of the prosecution but whether the statements recorded, by themselves, inspire of confidence of the court for the purpose of convicting the accused, which in this particular case, according to the learned counsel for the appellant-UT, has been proved. 17. The contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant-UT have been considered by this Court. 18. As regards the question of ownership of the shop, this Court is in agreement with the finding of the learned Trial Court that the complainant has not been able to prove the ownership of the shop. Reliance cannot be placed on the statement allegedly given by the A2 as the same was never reduced into writing and neither was it a confession. This is moreso, as at the time when the said information was allegedly given by the A2 to PW2, A2 was not an accused in the case. The statement of an accused made before he is arrayed as an accused, cannot be taken as a confession especially, if he is not warned before he makes the said statement that the same could be used against him to prosecute and convict him and if thereafter, there is a conscious waiver of the right against self-incrimination by the said witness, his statement may be used against him. None of that has happened in this particular case. 19. The ownership of the shop has not been proved. Merely because Drugs were seized from the said shop and the statement of A2 that the shop was owned by A1 is inadequate. It would have been quite another case if the complainant had investigated/inquired from the manufactures of the Drugs which were seized as to whom they have sold the medicines of the batch number noted on the medicines. PW2 could have traced the purchaser of the medicines and the person who has made the payment to the Drug Company for the sale. PW2 could have traced the purchaser of the medicines and the person who has made the payment to the Drug Company for the sale. None of that was done. 20. The statement of the defence witnesses to the effect that the prosecution of A1 was on account of the fact that he was running the Fair Price Shop inside the Hospital at Shopian, where another Fair Price Shop by a Cooperative Society was also functioning; that there was bad blood between the Fair Price Shop run by the Cooperative Society and that of the A1. The complainant has not cross examined these witnesses in order to shake that statement with regard to previous enmity and neither has a suggestion been given to the defence witnesses, that the same is untrue. The defence witnesses have also stated that PW2 was anxious that the Fair Price Shop run by the Cooperative Society functioning must be the only one functioning from within the Hospital at Shopian and not that of A1. Here again, nothing has been brought out in cross examination or suggestion given that the statement is incorrect. 21. Under the circumstances, in view what has been argued and considered by this Court and also upon the perusal of the records of the case, this Court is unable to find any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court and view taken by it is probable and reasonable. 22. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed.