ORDER : V Srinivas, J. Assailing the judgment dated 21.08.2007 in Crl.A.No.294 of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned IX Additional Sessions Judge(FTC) at Guntur, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 by the judgment dated 21.07.2004 in C.C.No.67 of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise at Guntur, for the charges under section 17-B(e) r/w.27(c), Sec.17-B(d) r/w.27(c), Sec.18(a)(i) r/w.27(d), Sec.18-A r/w.28, Sec.18-B r/w.28-A and Sec.24 r/w.28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act), the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 29.08.2007 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioners was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1716 of 2007. 3. The shorn of prosecution case is that: i). On 08.01.1999, P.W.1 Drug Inspector inspected the Mallikarjuna Medical Corporation, Naaz Centre at Guntur, purchased twelve boxes, each containing five ampoules of one ml capacity of Methergin injection, labeled as manufactured by Korten Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited under manufacturing license No. KD 153, for Rs.627-36 p.s., obtained acknowledgment from P.W.2 on the back of Form No.17 and P.W.2 disclosed that he purchased the said drug from Sri Rajarajeswari Medical Agencies, Narasaraopeta to which P.W.4 is the proprietor. ii). Then P.W.1 directed P.W.2 not to sell the said stock, later divided the same into four equal portions, each portion containing three boxes, sealed them with his seal and sent one of the samples to the Drug Control Laboratory, Hyderabad along with Form-18. iii). On 25.03.1999, P.W.1 received analyst report stating that the said sample is not up to the standard quality for the reason that the sample does not contain the active ingredient “Methyl Ergo Metrine Maleate” and also does not comply the test for sterility as per Indian Pharmacopia, 1996. iv). Basing on the said information, he addressed a letter to P.W.5 to disclose the source of supply of the drug and P.W.4 stated that he purchased the said drugs from accused No.1-M/s. Omkar Medicals, Vijayawada, represented by its partners accused Nos.2 and 3. Inturn, accused No.2 gave reply that he purchased the said drug from petitioner/accused No.4-M/s. Sri Ganesh Medical Agencies at Tirupati to which accused Nos.5 to 8 are partners. v). Inturn, accused No.2 gave reply that he purchased the said drug from petitioner/accused No.4-M/s. Sri Ganesh Medical Agencies at Tirupati to which accused Nos.5 to 8 are partners. v). Accused No.5 gave reply that they never sold the subject drug to accused No.1. P.W.1 visited the manufacturing premises of Korten Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited, Santhistal, Thane at Maharastra, produced the sample packet along with letter dated 28.03.2001 before P.W.5 and P.W.5 got compared the sample by P.W.6 Quality Assurance Manager of the said company with control drug in Methergin Injection ampoule batch No.70954. P.W.6 in his letter stated that the original control sample of Methergin injection ampoules were not available in their factory, they got it compared with the carton and the label and there is difference in colour of red bands on the carton, letter of word “Methergin”, sandox colour of four bands, ampoules and sandoz letters etc. vi). Since, accused Nos.1 to 8 violated the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, P.W.1 obtained sanction orders from the Director of Drugs Control Administration to launch prosecution against them. Hence, the complaint. 4. The complaint was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.67 of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise at Guntur, after full-fledged trial, vide judgment dated 21.07.2004, found the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 are not guilty of the charges under Section 17- B(e) r/w.27(c), Sec.17-B(d) r/w.27(c), Sec.18(a)(i) r/w.27(d), Sec.18-A r/w.28, Sec.18-B r/w.28-A and Sec.24 r/w.28 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act. However, found the accused Nos.4 and 5 guilty of the charges under Section 17-B(e) r/w.27(c), Sec.17- B(d) r/w.27(c), Sec.18(a)(i) r/w.27(d), Sec.18-A r/w.28, Sec.18-B r/w.28-A and Sec.24 r/w.28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 5. Since accused No.4 is a firm and accused No.5 is the Managing partner, sentenced accused No.5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three (3) years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in-default to suffer simple imprisonment of six (6) months each, for the charge Nos.1 and 2, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in-default to suffer simple imprisonment of two (2) months, for the charge No.3, pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each indefault to suffer simple imprisonment of two (2) months each, for the charge Nos.4 to 6. Since, accused No.4 is a firm represented by accused No.5, who was already sentenced to imprisonment as per law, accused No.4 need not be sentenced to imprisonment, however, sentenced accused No.4 to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in-default to suffer simple imprisonment of six (6) months each for charge Nos.1 and 2 and also pay Rs.1,000/- each, in-default to suffer simple imprisonment of two (2) months each, for charge Nos.4 to 6. All the sentences imposed against accused No.5 shall run concurrently. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.294 of 2004, before the Court of learned IX Additional Sessions Judge(FTC) at Guntur and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 21.08.2007, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 7. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5. 8. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri K.S.Gopal Krishnan appearing for Sri P.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. 9. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 10. 9. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 10. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.S.Gopal Krishnan appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 submits that petitioners are the whole sale dealers and their firm is registered under A.P.G.S.T. on 07.01.1991 having valid license under Ex.P.61, not a manufacturer; that the Drug Inspector, who was examined as P.W.1 did not file any gazette publication in which he was appointed a person to be the inspector for such area as may be assigned by the State Government; that Section 20 and 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act have not followed by P.W.1; that the mandatory provision under Section 25(3) were not complied by P.W.1 and failed to supply analyst report to the petitioners; that the petitioners are no way concerned to the alleged manufacture of the subject drug; that the procedure under Rule 46 has not followed by P.W.1, which is fatal to the prosecution case; that the source of said drug was not established by the prosecution against the petitioner; that the prosecution mainly relied on the alleged raid conducted on 24.12.1998 over the shop of accused No.4 by D.I., Tirupati, which has nothing to do with the present case on hand; that there is no material on record to say that accused No.4 firm supplied the subject drug to accused No.1 by way of sale; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioners and the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, he relied upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 272, Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad (1999) 8 SCC 266 and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 as well relied upon judgments of various High Courts in Gaba Pharmaceuticals v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2006 LawSuit (Hyd) 2, The State of Maharashtra v. Shri R.A.Chandawarkar 1999 (2) MHLJ 650 ;1999 (5) BOMCR 519, M/s.Gaba Pharmaceuticals Private v. Union of India Crl.P.No.2178 of 2015 decided on 14.08.2015, Dr.Pangjung AO v. State of Nagaland (2019) 3 Gauhati Law Reports 172, Sri S.A.Kishore v. State By Drug Inspector Criminal Petition No.5292 of 2010 decided on 09.04.2013, Syed Hussain v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Criminal Petition No.5546 of 2022 decided on 26.07.2022 and M/s.Chennakesha Bandage v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Criminal Petition No.1783 of 2009 decided on 04.12.2009. 11. As against the same, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submits that on 08.01.1999, P.W.1 Drug Inspector inspected the shop of P.W.2 and taken sample of drug, which was not in standard of quality; that the said drug was supplied by accused No.4 firm to accused No.1 firm and sold to the shop of P.W.4, which in-turn sold to the shop of P.W.2; that accused No.4 firm has not disclosed the source of accusation of said drug i.e., Methergin Injection, failed to disclose the name, address and other particulars of person from whom spurious injection was purchased and even failed to furnish the purchase bills of said drug; that P.Ws.1 to 6 categorically testified about the offence committed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5; that prosecution categorically established the guilt of the petitioners beyond all doubt by producing Exs.P.1 to P.67; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the material on record, convicted the petitioner for the said charges and that there is no material on record to discard the findings recorded by both the Courts below. 12. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. It is an admitted fact that so far as accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 is concerned, no appeal or revision preferred by the prosecution against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 13. 12. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. It is an admitted fact that so far as accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 is concerned, no appeal or revision preferred by the prosecution against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 13. Now, it is required to make a mention certain observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kappor case (referred to supra) that “Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.” 14. In the present case on hand, the foremost contention of the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 is that the Drug Inspector, who was examined as P.W.1 did not file any gazette publication in which he was appointed as a person to be the inspector for such area as may be assigned by the State Government, which is contravention to the Section 20 and 21 of the Act. The said ground alone vitiates the entire prosecution case. 15. It is not in dispute, in the present case on hand, prosecution did not produce any gazette publication authorizing P.W.1 to conduct raid in such area. Furthermore, on perusal of testimony of P.W.1, nothing stated about the said gazette publication. Thereby, this Court has no hesitation to say that no material is placed on record to show that P.W.1 is authorized to conduct such raid being Drug Inspector in the said area. Furthermore, on perusal of testimony of P.W.1, nothing stated about the said gazette publication. Thereby, this Court has no hesitation to say that no material is placed on record to show that P.W.1 is authorized to conduct such raid being Drug Inspector in the said area. It is settled law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods are necessarily forbidden, as referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avatar Singh case (referred to supra). 16. More so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Kishore Jha case (referred to supra) categorically observed that “it is well settled salutary principle that if a statue provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner”. 17. It is clear, in the present case on hand, no piece of paper is filed to show that P.W.1 was duly appointed by the Government by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette for the purpose of taking sample in certain zone nor anything testified by any of the prosecution witness in that regard. Since no such Gazette Notification was placed before the Courts below and there is no G.O. notifying that are under which P.W.1 could discharge his duties, even the prosecution could not launch proceedings against the petitioners. Furthermore, compliance with the procedure as to the need for such notification being published in the Official Gazette, is a must, for otherwise, he may not be deemed a gazette officer and could not be considered as a public servant. More so, in view of such vital powers conferred by Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on such Drug Inspector, the said section clearly, mandates that the Central Government or the State Government, may issue notification in Official Gazette so as to be appoint such Drug Inspector for such areas as assigned to them. 18. In support of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on certain observations made by the various High Courts in several decisions as referred supra. 18. In support of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on certain observations made by the various High Courts in several decisions as referred supra. In the present case on hand, as discussed supra, it appears that there is no such notification issued by the State Government either appointing P.W.1 as Drugs Inspector or the Controlling Authority under the Act or Rules for such area in which he can discharge his duties, which is nothing but contravention to the provision and rules of the said Act. Since the Gazette notification as published in the Official Gazette has not been placed on record before the Courts below, illegal and improper findings are given. Furthermore, in view of the contravention of Section 20 and 21 of the Act, even this Court need not to adjudicate the other grounds. 19. Besides, it is the main contention of the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 that prosecution failed to prove the source of supply of alleged drug to accused No.1 by the petitioners and they are no way concerned with the said drugs. On perusal of the testimony of P.W.1 said to be Drug Inspector, he addressed Ex.P.17 letter to accused No.1 and accused No.1 gave Ex.P.19 reply dated 10.05.1999 confirming the sale of said drugs to P.W.4. On 12.05.1999, again, he sent remainder to accused No.1 under Ex.P.22 and on 17.05.1999, accused No.2 gave reply on behalf of accused No.1 that he purchased drug from accused No.4 through Exs.P.24 to P.35 bills. Then, P.W.1 addressed Ex.P.38 letter, dated 04.06.1999 to accused No.4 to disclose the source of acquisition. In reply to the same, accused No.4 addressed Ex.P.40 letter, dated 18.06.1999 stating that he did not sell the same to accused No.1. On that, P.W.1 informed the same to accused No.1, vide Ex.P.41 letter dated 16.07.1999, and the same was received by him, but even on receipt of another letter, vide Ex.P.43 dated 04.10.1999, which was also received on 11.10.1999 vide Ex.P.44, no reply from accused No.1. As such, the prosecution case is very much silent about the source of supply of said drug to accused No.1, in particularly from accused No.4. PW5 categorically stated in his evidence that they have not sold the drugs in question to the present petitioners. 20. As such, the prosecution case is very much silent about the source of supply of said drug to accused No.1, in particularly from accused No.4. PW5 categorically stated in his evidence that they have not sold the drugs in question to the present petitioners. 20. Moreover, it is very contention of the petitioners that Exs.P.24 to P.35 do not belongs to them, they issue only computer-generated printed bills, but not handwritten bills and they are fabricated for the purpose of this case. On perusal of Exs.P.24 to P.34, they are all handwritten bills and they do not contain any seal or stamp pertaining to accused No.4 shop. No steps were taken by the Prosecution on this aspect. 21. Even it is the testimony of P.W.1 that he did not seize copies of Exs.P.24 to P.35 from accused No.4, as they were seized by Drug Inspector, Tirupati. But, the said Drug Inspector, Tirupati was not examined by the prosecution. As such, this Court cannot rely upon said bills. All the above facts and circumstances go to show that prosecution failed to connect the present petitioners towards sale transaction of said drugs to accused No.1. 22. It is also further contention of the petitioners that they are in no way concerned to the alleged manufacture of the subject drug and even mere possession is not sufficient to convict them for the said charges. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are not the manufacture of the said drug. Even if the petitioners failed to disclose the source of accusation of said drug, which is said to be not standard quality, P.W.1 himself not qualified or authorized to conduct any raid or lifting the samples in the absence of any authorization i.e., Official Gazette Notification by the Government, as discussed supra, which vitiates entire prosecution case and against the principles of law. Thereby, this Court need not look into the other aspects as discussed supra. 23. Furthermore, it is also contention of the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 that the mandatory provision under Section 25(3) were not complied with by P.W.1 and failed to supply analyst report to the petitioners. As could be seen from the testimony of P.W.1 and other material on record, no such copy of Ex.P.12 analyst report was served on the accused, which is nothing but contravention to the mandatory provisions of the Act. As could be seen from the testimony of P.W.1 and other material on record, no such copy of Ex.P.12 analyst report was served on the accused, which is nothing but contravention to the mandatory provisions of the Act. On the other hand, it was served only on P.W.2 under Ex.P.13. Thereby, in that score also, prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act, which cut the root of the case. 24. The Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the above said aspects, mechanically proceed with the prosecution version and erroneously made the findings against the petitioners. Thereby, viewing from any angle, the trail Court as well first Appellate Court miserably failed to appreciate the lacunas in the prosecution case, which cut the root of the case and convicted the petitioners for the said charges, which is not tenable under law. 25. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court as well first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the material on record in proper perspective, there is manifest error of law and flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the trial Court as well first Appellate Court, thereby, the present criminal revision has merits and liable to be considered. 26. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5, vide judgment dated 21.07.2004 in C.C.No.67 of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise at Guntur, as confirmed in the judgment, dated 21.08.2007 in Crl.A.No.294 of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Guntur, are hereby set aside. The revision petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 are acquitted of the charges under Section 17-B(e) r/w.27(c), Sec.17-B(d) r/w.27(c), Sec.18(a)(i) r/w.27(d), Sec.18-A r/w.28, Sec.18-B r/w.28-A and Sec.24 r/w.28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The fine amount paid by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5, if any, shall be refunded to them. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.