STATE Vs. HAKIM ARJUNDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals involve a common question of law and will therefore, both be disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) THE respondents in both cases are medical practitioners at Umaria. They are not licencees under the provisions of the Drugs Rules as well as the Drugs Act for selling medicines specified in Schedule (c) of the Drugs Rules. The Assistant Surgeon Umaria, in his capacity as Inspector under the Drugs Act, on inspecting the shops of the two respondents Harbaxrai and Arjundas, found certain medicines stocked in the almirah of each shop where the respondent in each case carried on his profession as a physician. These included the medicines mentioned in Schedule (c) of the Drugs Rules. The District Medical Officer Shahdol find complaint, against the respondents under S. 18 (a) (v) and (c) of the Drugs Act read with S. 27 of the Drugs Act. 1940. The Magistrate First Class Umaria, who tried the accused, acquitted the respondents. The State Government has now come up in appeal against the order of acquittal passed in each case.

(3.) TO prove an offence under S. 13 of the Drugs Act the prosecution must prove that the goods were stocked for sale, and not merely that they were stocked. This can be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Ordinarily where a medicine is kept in a shop there will be a presumption that it is there for the purpose of sale unless that presumption is rebutted by the accused -See Kasimbhai Vs. State, AIR 1956 All. 703.