Mere possession of drugs without evidence of intent to sell is insufficient for conviction under Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

The Drug Inspector received information that the respondent was selling Oxytocin Injections without a license at "M/s. Bhagwati Book Stores" in Patan

A raid was conducted on May 28, 2000, where five boxes of injections were seized

Samples were sent for analysis, and the Public Analyst reported them to be substandard

The state filed a complaint under Sections 18(c), 18(A)(1), 18(A)(6), and 18(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on December 31, 2007, citing the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt

1. Whether the mere possession of drugs, without affirmative evidence of intent to sell or distribute, is sufficient to invite conviction under Section 27 read with Section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

2. Whether contradictions regarding the sealing of samples and the testimony of hostile panch witnesses vitiated the prosecution's case

The court primarily applied Section 18 (prohibiting manufacture/sale of certain drugs) and Section 27 (penalties) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

It relied on the principle from Mohd. Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 564, which established that the phrase "stocks or exhibits for sale" is indivisible; mere possession (possession simpliciter) is not punishable unless the prosecution proves the drugs were stocked specifically for sale

The court also applied the standard for appellate review of acquittals as per Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 and Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 280, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence

The Court observed that while the respondent accepted a "fair price" for the samples (Form-17/Exh-21), this did not conclusively prove he was routinely selling or stocking the injections for commercial purposes

Crucially, the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the drugs were exhibited in a manner to attract customers or that the store owner was a distributing agent

Furthermore, the court noted significant evidentiary discrepancies: the Drug Inspector claimed one seal was applied to the samples (Exh-28), whereas the Government Analyst’s report (Exh-29) recorded four red wax seals

Both panch witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) turned hostile and did not support the panchnama

Consequently, the High Court held that the Trial Court's view was a "possible view" and lacked any patent perversity or misreading of material evidence

It held that the prosecution failed to prove affirmatively that the respondent had stocked the drugs specifically for sale, as possession alone is not an offense under the Act

The court found no manifest illegality in the Trial Court's judgment given the contradictions in sample sealing and the lack of support from independent witnesses

The trial court's findings were deemed reasonable and plausible