S.S Grewal, J.:— Complaint under Section 27-A(ii) and 28 read with Sections 18(c) and 18-A of of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (herein-after to be referred to as the Act) and the rules framed there under was filed against Lashkar Singh accused, who was tried and acquitted of the said offence by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur vide his order dated 23rd of September, J986. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal, the State of Punjab has fiied the present appeal.
2. In brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this case as emerge from the complaint filed by Mohan Singh, Drugs Inspector, are that on 25th of November, 1982, he along with Dr. Krishna Bhalla, Assistant Civil Surgeon went to the shop of Lashkar Singh accused situated in village Ghorebaha. Harcharan Singh Sarpanch and F.M.Z Chaudbary were also present there at that time. The Drugs Inspector disclosed his identity and asked Lashkar Singh to produce Drugs Licence but the latter could nor produce the requisite licence. The Drugs Inspector seized all the drugs stocked in the shop and some instruments lying there through seizure memo. Ex. P.C The drugs and the instruments so seized were put into a box which was sealed with the seal of Drugs Inspector bearing impression ‘M.S Drugs Inspector’.
3. In reply to the notice Ex. PF served on accused, he pleaded that he was Assistant of Dr. Subhash Chander. However, on enquiry it was reported by the postal authorities that there was no person of such name and thereafter prosecution was launched against Lashkar Singh.
4. For the purposes of pre-charge evidence, the prosecution examined Mohan Singh, Drugs Inspector as PW 1 and Dr. A.R Salwan as PW2.
5. The trial court framed charges against the accused under Section 18(c) read with Section 27-A(ii) and 18-A read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. Mohan Singh PW1 and A.R Salwan PW2 were further cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. Dr. Mrs. Krishna Bhalla, Assistant Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur was examined as PW3, whereas Harcharan Singh P.W was given up as having been won cover by the accused.
7. Accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution allegations appearing in evidence against him and pleaded false implication. According to him, he was working as an Assistant at Rajindra Clinic with Dri S.C Malhan and the medicines were purchased by Dr. Mahan for his clinic. Lashkar Singh further pleaded that he was also a Registered Medical Practitioner and possessed the requisite certificate. The accused, however, did not produce any evidence in his defence
8. The learned trial Court on the basis of Single Bench authority of this Court in Phul Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1986 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 532 held that the accused has been registered as a medical practitioner in the register of Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Practitioners Act, 1964 in Haryana; he was also a licence holder as Registered Medical Practitioner (R.M.P) and his name was also entered in the regis ter of Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Practitioners Rules, 1963 maintained in Haryana and as such the accused comes within the definition of Registered Medical Practitioner and was entitled to keep the medicines in the shop and there was no violation of Section 18(c) of the Act.
9. The authority in Phul Singh's case, referred to above, was overruled bv a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2204 of 1986 Dr. Sarwan Singh Dardi v. The State, decided on 17th September, 1986 wherein it was specifically held that a medical practioner of the Indian System of Medicine is not entitled to keep allopathic drugs in his possession and administer them to his parties. The impugned order passed by the tril Court mainly relied on the observations of the authority in Phul Singh's case (supra) cannot be legally sustained.
10. From the testimony of Mohan Singh, Drugs Inspector concerning seizure of allopathic medicines, it is apparent that substantial stock of allopathic medicines and other articles including instruments were stocked in the shop by Lashkar Singh accused which were meant for sale. Lashkar Singh accused had valid authority to stock such medicines or instruments in his shop which were meant for sale. The testimony of Mohan Singh, Drugs Inspector concerning recovery of a large number of allopathic medicines and instruments finds ample corroboration from the testimony of Dr. Krishna Bhalla. Assistant Civil Surgeon. No material contradiction worth the name has been pointed out in the testimony of the two witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution on material aspects of the prosecution story. The defence plea that the accused was earlier working as Assistant at Rajindra Clinic with Dr. S.C Malhan or that the medicines were purchased by dr. S.C Malhan for his clinic has not been substantiated on the record.
11. On the basis of reply of the accused further enquiries were made by the Drugs Inspector through registered post from Dr. S.C Malhan. The registered letter so sent was delivered back to the Drugs Inspector with the report of the postal authorities that no doctor by the said name resides at the given adddress. Thus the plea set up by the accused that the medicines taken from the shop of the accused in fact belonged to Dr. S.C Malhan has not been proved on the record. The other plea raised by the accused that he was a (allopathic) medical practitioner has also not been substantiated on the record.
12. As already discussed in the earlier part of the judgment, the accused was registered as a Medical Practitioner under Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Practitioners Act, 1964 and rules framed thereunder and on the basis of the said licence, the accused cannot legallay stock or keep in his possession allopathic medicines and dther instruments at his shop for sale. The prosecntion has thus been able to bring home guilt under Section 27-A(ii) read with Section 18(c) of the Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and we convict Lashkar Singh accused accordingly.
13. Taking into consideration the fact that most of the allopathic medicines recovered from the shop of the accused were those which are commonly used by the public and the fact that the accused has undergone the agony of trial for over two years in the trial court and another four years in this Court where appeal against acquittal remained pending, we do not deem it necessary to award the minimum sentence under Section 27-A(ii) of the Act to him, instead in our opinion the ends of justice would be fully met, in case Lashkar Singh is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and we order accordingly.
14. We hereby accept the appeal and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, which is grossly perverse.