Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1372 (ALL)

Virendra Kumar Goel v. State of U. P.

2025-11-28

ANISH KUMAR GUPTA

body2025
JUDGMENT ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri Hari Keshav, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA alongwith Smt. Harshita Rani, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant herein being aggrieved by judgement and order dated 09.02.1984, whereby the appellant herein was convicted for the offence under Section 27 (a)(ii) and 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and he was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 6,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo three years further rigorous imprisonment. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was the proprietor of the Arogya Store and used to store and sell medicines to the general public on the prescriptions of the registered medical practitioners. On 03.01.1976, the Drug Inspector, Pradeep Kumar Rastogi (PW1) along with another Drug Inspector, D.K. Jaju (PW3), have got the information that the appellant herein was trading in spurious drugs in his shop. The above two Drug Inspectors visited the medical store of the appellant herein on 03.01.1976. They found the appellant was sitting in his aforesaid medical shop. Drug Inspector, Pradeep Kumar Rastogi (PW1) disclosed his identity and the purpose of his visit to the medical store of the appellant. According to the prosecution, the two Drug Inspectors allegedly gave their searches and summoned the witnesses. However, none of the witnesses turned up in the instant case. 4. From the medical store of the appellant, the Drug Inspector P.K. Rastogi (PW1) had obtained the sample of four medicines and prepared the memo for the same, wherein he has also obtained the signature of the appellant herein and one part of the sample of each of the medicines taken was given to the accused, which was allegedly acknowledged by the appellant in Form No. 17 with regard to the receipt of the sample. Form No. 17 was also signed by Drug Inspector Jaju (PW3). 5. For the purchase of aforesaid medicines, the bill was allegedly issued by the appellant herein for a total sum of Rs. 66.15. According to the prosecution, though the amount of the bill was not tendered on the spot by the Drug Inspector, however, later on a draft of Rs.66.15 dated 09.01.1976 was sent to the appellant by post on 12.01.1976. For the purchase of aforesaid medicines, the bill was allegedly issued by the appellant herein for a total sum of Rs. 66.15. According to the prosecution, though the amount of the bill was not tendered on the spot by the Drug Inspector, however, later on a draft of Rs.66.15 dated 09.01.1976 was sent to the appellant by post on 12.01.1976. However, the receipt of the said demand draft has been disputed by the appellant. According to him, he has never received the said demand draft nor the same was encashed by him. 6. In the aforesaid samples prepared by the Drug Inspector, a sample of 40 white circular tablets, the word chloroquine 250 mg was engraved on one side and Scortid on the other side. Batch No. T500192 of Nectarine Company, was hand written on the bottle. The aforesaid sample was sent by the Drug Inspector to the Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta on 07.01.1976 for analysis. The Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta gave its report to the aforesaid centre on 14.06.1976, stating therein the average weight of each tablet is 0.3794 grams. On analysis it didn't give positive test for chloroquine phosphate. The opinion of the analyst is that the sample does not contain chloroquine phosphate. The item is spurious preparation and is considered misbranded under Section 17 F and adulterated under Section 17 (B)(e)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 7. As per the prosecution, the other three medicines of which the sample were taken from the medical stores, were also sent for the analysis and were found to be confirming to the standard quality by Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta. However, only with regard to the 40 chloroquine tablets, of which allegedly the sample was taken from the shop of the appellant and were sent for analysis to Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta, the same were found to be substandard. Reports of the Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta were communicated to the appellant herein on 26.06.1976 in compliance with Section 25 (2) and Section 23 (4)(iii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. 8. In compliance of Section 19 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the appellant herein has communicated the said Drug Inspector that the aforesaid substandard medicines i.e., the chloroquine tablets of 250 mg were purchased by him from M/s Bhuvan Pharma. 8. In compliance of Section 19 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the appellant herein has communicated the said Drug Inspector that the aforesaid substandard medicines i.e., the chloroquine tablets of 250 mg were purchased by him from M/s Bhuvan Pharma. The proprietor of M/s Bhuvan Pharma admitted in his communication dated 13.06.1977 that the aforesaid chloroquine tablets of the aforesaid batch number were purchased by him from the manufacturer i.e., Nectarine Pharmacy, Faridabad. In two bottles of 500 tablets each, out of the aforesaid two bottles of 500, one bottle of 500 tablets was sold by him to Dr. B.C. Sharma on 14.10.1975. 200 tablets of the same were sold to Arogya Medical Store on 31.10.1975 and one bottle of 300 tablets were again sold to Dr. B.C. Sharma on 06.11.1975. 9. The manufacturer of the aforesaid medicines i.e., Nectarine Pharmacy, has also communicated Drug Inspector vide letter dated 17.01.1976 that the aforesaid batch of medicines was manufactured by Nectarine Pharmacy. In the quantity of 2 lakh tablets, the actual quantity of the medicines were 390 bottles into 500 tablets. This batch was packed in plastic bottles, each having 500 tablets and the batch was not packed in any other packing. According to Nectarine Pharmacy, the quality of the said batch of medicines were tested and were found to be standard quality. The Drug Inspector has also sealed 118 tablets of the aforesaid batch from the Nectarine Pharmacy, which were similarly embossed on one side with chloroquine and Scortid on the other side, which were similar to chloroquine tablets seized from the medical store of the appellant herein. 10. It is not in dispute that in the instant appeal the appellants herein as well as the Bhuvan Pharama, from where the appellant had purchased the aforesaid medicines for his medical store, both were having valid licenses on the date when samples were taken from the medical store of the appellant. 11. The Nectarine Pharmacy had also admitted in its communication dated 23.11.1976 that two bottles of 500 tablets each of chloroquine phosphate IP Batch No. T500192 were supplied to M/s Bhuvan Pharma. After completing the investigation, the said Drug Inspector filed the complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut against the appellant as well as Dineshwar Prasad Sharma, the proprietor of Bhuvan Pharma. After completing the investigation, the said Drug Inspector filed the complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut against the appellant as well as Dineshwar Prasad Sharma, the proprietor of Bhuvan Pharma. However, in the complaint, the manufacture of the aforesaid medicines was not made a party. 12. According to the prosecution/complainant, the Nectarine Pharmacy had informed to the Drug Inspector that the quality of the medicines were checked by the Nectarine Company prior to its sale and according to it, the weight of each of the tablet was approximately 0.29916 grams, and the medicines were claimed to be containing the Chloroquine Phosphate of 250 mg per tablet whereas, as per the analyst report received from the Drugs Laboratory, the weight of each tablet is 0.3794 grams. On the basis of the aforesaid internal analysis report submitted by the Nectarine Pharmacy, the complainant has concluded in its complaint that the sample collected by the Drug Inspector is not the product of Nectarine Pharmacy, and thus he has exonerated the manufacturer of the said medicines in the instant complaint. 13. After the aforesaid complaint was filed, on the basis of the material made available to the court, vide order dated 29.11.1979, after hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial court exonerated the accused no. 2, Dineshwar Prasad Sharma, who is the proprietor of the M/s Bhuvan Pharma, from whom the appellant herein has purchased the aforesaid medicines. However, the trial court proceeded to frame the following charges against the appellant herein:- "Firstly, that you being the proprietor of M/s Arogya Medical store on 3.1.1976 stocked and exhibited for sale the drug 160 chloroquin Tablets 250 Mg. at your shop Arogya Medical store, 90/2 Chhipi Tank, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut, which was not of standard quality, and hereby committed an offence punishable under section 28(b)/27(b) of the Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940 as amended by U.P. Act 47 of 1975 and within the cognizance of this court; and secondly, that you being the proprietor of M/s Arogya Medical store on 3.1.1976 stocked and exhibited for sale the drugs Chloroquin 160 tablets 250 Mg. At your shop Arogya Medical Store, 90/2 Chhipi Tank, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut which was misbranded and adulterated and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 27(a)(i) of the Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940 as amended by U.P. Act 47 of 1975 and within the cognizance of this court." 14. Statement of witnesses were recorded and in support of its case, the prosecution examined Drug Inspector Pradeep Kumar Rastogi as PW1, Drug Inspector Sri Surendra Singh Baga, who is the Chief Chemist of Nectarine Pharmacy as PW2, and Sri D.K. Jaju, another Drug Inspector, as PW3. 15. After recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant herein was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the appellant herein has admitted that the alleged medicines were seized from his medical store. The aforesaid medicines were purchased by him in loose quantity of 200 tablets from M/s Bhuvan Pharma, who is a licensed dealer and the label on the bottle was affixed by the dealer from where he has purchased the aforesaid medicines. 16. With regard to the question of preparation of sample of the aforesaid medicines, the appellant has categorically contedted that the samples were not prepared in his presence. He was alone in the shop when the inspectors had conducted the inspection and the another inspector has taken the medicines outside, and thereafter the samples were prepared behind him. With regard to the sample sent to the Central Drug Analyst, he has denied the same as he is not aware about the same. The appellant has further stated that he has been denied an opportunity of getting his samples examined from the analyst. He is not aware whether the samples were the same which was taken from his shop. He further stated that since the medicines were sealed in bottles of other medicines, what reaction would have taken place, he is not aware. It is further stated by him that the sample of medicines, which were taken from the Nectarine Pharmacy by the Drug Inspector, has not been put to analysis nor any analysis was got done of the medicines seized and sealed from Nectarine Pharmacy of the same batch. He has not been given any opportunity to get his sample analyzed from the Central Drug Laboratory, and after some time of the aforesaid incident, he had closed his medical store. 17. He has not been given any opportunity to get his sample analyzed from the Central Drug Laboratory, and after some time of the aforesaid incident, he had closed his medical store. 17. In support of his defense, the appellant has also examined DW1, Dr. Jagdish Prasad and DW2, Dr. A.K. Rastogi, both of them were lecturers in the Chemistry Department, in Meerut College, Meerut. The appellant has also examined himself as DW3. 18. In his deposition, the appellant has stated that the aforesaid Drug Inspectors had dictated him to follow their instruction otherwise he will be arrested under MISA. Drug Inspector P.K. Rastogi sent the other Drug Inspector out of the shop, and subsequent thereto, when he came back, he has not given any search, and he cannot say what he has brought along with him. While preparing the sample of the Chloroquine tablets, the other inspector has taken him to the other side of the shop, where they could go only through a small door. Therefore, what proceedings were conducted in that other portion of the shop, could not be seen by him. When the samples were prepared and how it was prepared, is not known to him. The bottles in which the samples were filled were not given by him to the inspector, rather the said bottles were brought by the said inspectors from their own. The label on the bottle of Chloroquine tablets was pasted by the proprietor of M/s Bhuvan Pharma at the time when he has purchased the aforesaid tablets from M/s Bhuvan Pharma. He has also proved the bill regarding purchase of the aforesaid Chloroquine tablets from M/s Bhuvan Pharma. The original bill has been produced by the appellant. He has also stated that the rates of the medicines on the bill of the medicine taken by the Drug Inspector was written by him as dictated by the Drug Inspector, and he has got the reduced rate written on the bill as the rates were written as dictated by them because they had threatened him. Since, he was got coerced by the inspectors, therefore, he could not question them why they are getting the under-rates of the medicines on the bill. 19. Since, he was got coerced by the inspectors, therefore, he could not question them why they are getting the under-rates of the medicines on the bill. 19. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution as well as the defense, the trial court has concluded the trial and convicted the appellant herein for the offense under Section 27 (a)(i) and 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, as amended by UP Act No. 47 of 1975 and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment for the offense under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 6,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he would have to undergo further three years rigorous imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant herein has filed the instant criminal appeal, which was admitted on 20.02.1984, and the appellant herein was released on bail and the realization of the fine was also stayed by this Court. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is not in dispute in the instant case that the appellant herein was having a valid license with regard to sale and purchase of the medicines. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid quantity of 200 chloroquine tablets were purchased by him from M/s Bhuvan Pharma, who was also a licensed dealer. The said tablets were purchased by him in a loose quantity of 200 tablets, as the pack of the tablets was of 500 tablets in a bottle. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid medicines were purchased by the said Bhuvan Pharma from the Nectarine Pharmacy, who is the manufacturer of those medicines. Thus, the appellant herein has completely discharged its burden as required under Section 19 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The complete chain of purchase of medicines from the manufacturer i.e., Nectarine Pharmacy by the M/s Bhuvan Pharma, and from M/s Bhuvan Pharma by the appellant, is complete. Thus, if the medicines are found to be of substandard quality, it is only the manufacturer who is responsible for the production of such substandard medicines. The complete chain of purchase of medicines from the manufacturer i.e., Nectarine Pharmacy by the M/s Bhuvan Pharma, and from M/s Bhuvan Pharma by the appellant, is complete. Thus, if the medicines are found to be of substandard quality, it is only the manufacturer who is responsible for the production of such substandard medicines. Being a dealer in the medicines, it was the duty of the appellant herein to purchase the same from a reliable source and when any sample is taken and found to be of substandard quality, it was his duty to disclose the source from where it was purchased. The aforesaid burden has been categorically discharged by the appellant herein. Thus, if there is any liability of production of substandard quality of medicines, the appellant herein cannot be held responsible, rather it is the manufacturer who is directly liable for the same. 21. The Drug Inspectors, though according to prosecution, has seized 118 tablets from the manufacturer of the same batch, however, the same has never been sent to the Central Drug Laboratory for analysis. In regard to the same, only the report of the manufacturer has been relied upon by the Drug Inspectors without sending the same to the analyst. Unless the sample which was taken from the shop of the appellant and from the manufacturer of the aforesaid drugs are compared by an independent analyst, the appellant herein cannot be held to be responsible for any inferiority or substandard quality of medicine as it is an admitted position in the instant case that the appellant herein is not the manufacturer nor he had any source of knowledge that the medicines which he had purchased from M/s Bhuvan Pharma, which were produced by the Nectarine Pharmacy were of the substandard quality. Thus, there is no mens rea in the instant case on the part of the appellant herein. So far as the difference in weight as alleged by the Nectarine Pharmacy in its report that the weight of the tablet is 299.16 mg, whereas the analyst has found the weight of the tablets in the sample taken from the appellant is 0.3794 grams i.e., 379.4 mg. The aforesaid difference in the weight comes due to the moisture and other chemical reactions when the aforesaid medicines come in contact of the air when kept in a less quantity in a larger size of the bottle. The aforesaid difference in the weight comes due to the moisture and other chemical reactions when the aforesaid medicines come in contact of the air when kept in a less quantity in a larger size of the bottle. The DW1 and DW2 have categorically deposed in this regard that the difference in weight is possible due to the contact of the medicine with other chemicals or moisture. 22. The Drug Inspector has relied upon the reports submitted by the manufacturer without any analysis of the samples taken from the manufacturer of the same batch of the medicines. Unless the sample taken from the manufacturer and the sample taken from the shop of the appellant both are compared by the same drug analyst, it cannot be said that the two are the different samples and the medicines which were taken from the shop of appellant was not the same medicine which was manufactured by the Nectarine Pharmacy. Therefore, the benefit of doubt must go to the appellant herein. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that trial court has convicted the appellant herein heavily relying upon Section 19A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act as amended through UP Act No. 47 of 1975. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of taking samples he was badly threatened by the Drug Inspector as it was the time of national emergency they had threatened him to be arrested under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (in short, 'MISA'). Further, when the report of the Central Drug Analyst was communicated to the appellant herein, he was in fact arrested under MISA and he had sought some time from the drug inspector to get the sample, which was given to the appellant herein, be tested after the release of the appellant herein from detention under MISA. However, no such opportunity was granted to the appellant herein and straightway the complaint was lodged and in the said complaint the manufacturer of the aforesaid medicines has not been deliberately made party for reasons best known to the said Drug Inspectors. 24. However, no such opportunity was granted to the appellant herein and straightway the complaint was lodged and in the said complaint the manufacturer of the aforesaid medicines has not been deliberately made party for reasons best known to the said Drug Inspectors. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that so far as recovery and seizure of the medicines is concerned, the same is wholly doubtful as there is no independent witness in the instant case with regard to the seizure, preparation of samples and both the Drug Inspectors had acted in a wholly biased manner against the appellant herein. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant herein is entitled for acquittal in said case. 25. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that in the instant case the appellant herein has not disputed that the samples were taken from his shop by the Drug Inspectors (PW1 and PW3) and it is also not in dispute that the same was got analyzed by the Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta and it was found to be of substandard quality. Thus, prime facie case is made out against the appellant herein and in view of the provisions of Section 19A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act as amended in UP, the burden to prove that the appellant is not responsible for the substandard quality of the medicine is on the appellant herein, which the appellant has not discharged in the instant case. Therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant herein. Thus, learned AGA for the State submits that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order passed by trial court. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 26. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. The undisputed facts in the case are that the Drug Inspector P.K. Rastogi along with Drug Inspector D.K. Jaju had visited the medical store of the appellant herein on 03.01.1976 and had taken the four medicines from the shop of the appellant herein for which the bill was issued by the appellant. Though, at the time of taking the medicines amount of the medicines was not tendered by the Drug Inspector to the appellant herein as it was mandated under Section 23 (1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Though, at the time of taking the medicines amount of the medicines was not tendered by the Drug Inspector to the appellant herein as it was mandated under Section 23 (1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Though, it is stated by the prosecution that the amount of the said bill for purchase of the medicine was tendered by demand draft to the appellant herein which was duly encashed. Thus, there was sufficient compliance of provisions of Section 23 (1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It is also evident from the record that though the medicines were purchased and samples were prepared, though there is no independent witness in the instant case with regard to the seizure of the medicines. The appellant herein has disputed that the said samples were not prepared in front of him but he was taken aside in the back portion of the medical store and in the meantime the samples were prepared by the Drug Inspectors in the bottles which were brought by them. It is undisputed in the said case that the appellant herein was having a valid license for sale and purchase of the medicines and the medicine i.e., chloroquine tablets, which were manufactured by Nectarine Pharmacy was purchased by the appellant from a licensed dealer of the medicine. The bills in this regard have also been produced by the appellant, which have not been disputed by M/s Bhuvan Pharma in the said case. Rather, Bhuvan Pharma has categorically admitted that the aforesaid medicines were sold by it to the appellant herein on 31.10.1975 quantity of 200 tablets and the aforesaid medicines were purchased by M/s Bhuvan Pharma from the Nectarine Pharmacy. Thus, the appellant herein has categorically discharged its burden to prove that he has purchased the aforesaid medicines from the reliable source which were purchased by M/s Bhuvan Pharma from Nectarine Pharmacy. Thus, if the quality of the said medicine was found to be substandard by the Central Drug Analyst Laboratory, Calcutta. The appellant herein cannot be held to be responsible. Rather, it is the Nectarine Pharmacy who is the manufacturer of the said medicines is directly responsible for production of substandard quality of medicines. Being a licensed dealer in medicine, it is the duty of the appellant herein to purchase the medicines from reliable sources that is the reliable dealer who is having license to sell the medicines. Rather, it is the Nectarine Pharmacy who is the manufacturer of the said medicines is directly responsible for production of substandard quality of medicines. Being a licensed dealer in medicine, it is the duty of the appellant herein to purchase the medicines from reliable sources that is the reliable dealer who is having license to sell the medicines. There is ample evidence on record that the appellant herein has purchased the medicine from M/s Bhuvan Pharma, which has not even been disputed by M/s Bhuvan Pharma. Rather, it has been admitted by communication dated 13.06.1977 by Dineshchandra Prasad Sharma, the proprietor of M/s Bhuvan Pharma that the said medicines were sold by it to the appellant herein, which were purchased by it from M/s Nectarine Pharmacy. 27. The Drug Inspector P.K. Rastogi (PW1) had also seized 118 tablets retained by the manufacturer i.e., Nectarine Pharmacy, as control sample on 17.11.1976. However, the same has never been sent to the Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta. No report with regard to the analysis of the 118 tablets, which were seized and sealed by PW1, has been produced on record. Without examination and analysis of the sample, which was taken from the Nectarine Pharmacy with regard to the same batch of medicines, it cannot be said that the sample of medicine which were sold by Nectarine Pharmacy to Bhuvan Pharma and Bhuvan Pharma to the appellant herein is not the same and the Nectarine Pharmacy is not responsible for manufacturing of the substandard quality of medicines. 28. The Drug Inspector in its own wisdom, without examining the sample collected from the Nectarine Pharmacy, relying upon the analyst report of the Nectarine Pharmacy itself, has concluded that the medicines of which the sample was taken is not the medicine produced by Nectarine Pharmacy, without any basis therefor. Once the Drug Inspector had collected the sample from Nectarine Pharmacy of the controlled sample of the same batch of the medicines, it was his duty to send the same also for analysis to the same Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta and only after obtaining the report with regard to the said medicines also, he could have concluded that the medicines, which were seized from the shop of the appellant herein are not the same medicine, which were produced by the Nectarine Pharmacy. Without such analysis, the said conclusion drawn by the Drug Inspector P.K. Rastogi is without any basis and cannot be relied upon against the appellant herein. In the instant case the source of purchase of medicine and complete chain thereof has been brought on record by the appellant herein, which has not been disputed by either the Nectarine Pharmacy and by the Bhuvan Pharma, therefore, it cannot be concluded that it were not the same medicines which were produced by the Nectarine Pharmacy. 29. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant has fully discharged its burden as mandated under Section 19 (A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, as amended by UP amendment and coupled with the provision of Section 19 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and has disclosed the complete source of the medicine. Thus, since the complete chain of the purchase of medicines by the appellant has been established, therefore, it can be safely concluded that the aforesaid medicines, of which the sample was taken from the shop of the appellant herein, were the medicines produced by the Nectarine Pharmacy. Thus, for any defect, found in the said medicines, the appellant herein cannot be held to be responsible. Rather, it is only the manufacturer who is responsible for the same. 30. In his cross-examination, PW1- the Drug Inspector has categorically admitted that the sample of same batch of medicines of 118 tablets which was collected by him and sealed from Nectarine Pharmacy has never been sent to the analysis, and the same sealed packet has been produced before the court, which has been identified by the Drug Inspector that the same is intact. 31. Much emphasis has been laid by the trial court with regard to the weight of the medicines as per the analysis report of the Nectarine Pharmacy and the analysis report of the Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta. Since merely relying upon the analysis report of the Nectarine Pharmacy alone, without sending the samples of the medicines for analysis to the same drug analyst and the actual weight of the medicines has not been weighed by the analyst, which were taken from Nectarine Pharmacy and sealed by the Drug Inspector. Since merely relying upon the analysis report of the Nectarine Pharmacy alone, without sending the samples of the medicines for analysis to the same drug analyst and the actual weight of the medicines has not been weighed by the analyst, which were taken from Nectarine Pharmacy and sealed by the Drug Inspector. Therefore, merely because there is a difference in weight as per the Quality Control Certificate of Analysis issued by Nectarine Pharmacy and the actual weight as analyzed by the Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta, no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant herein. Had there been analysis of both samples, collected from the Nectarine Pharmacy as well as that collected from the appellant herein and the analyst would have found a difference in both the aforesaid samples, only then any adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant. Thus, without there being any conclusive proof that the medicines which were sold by the Nectarine Pharmacy to Bhuwan Pharma and from Bhuwan Pharma to appellant herein are different medicines then the medicines of the same batch which were sealed by the Drug Inspector from the Nectarine Pharmacy are different, the appellant herein cannot be held responsible for any substandard quality of the medicines seized from his shop. If there was any substandard quality of medicine, it was the manufacturer of the medicine who alone is responsible for the same. The appellant herein has categorically discharged its burden by disclosing source of purchase of the aforesaid medicine and both the sources of the aforesaid purchase of medicines were valid sources having a proper license for production and sale of the medicines. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned judgment of the trial court is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. 32. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed . The judgment and order dated 09.02.1984 passed by the trial court is hereby set aside . The appellant herein is acquitted of all the charges leveled against him. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant herein is also set-aside 33. Since, the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 34. Let the trial court record be sent back to the trial court to be consigned. The seized material, if any, be disposed of in accordance with law after ninety days of the instant order.