Mere possession is not enough under drugs law; prosecution must prove sale, manufacture for sale, or stocking for sale.

Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, mere possession of tablets is insufficient for liability under section 27(a)(i) and section 27(a)(ii); the prosecution must affirmatively prove manufacture for sale, actual sale, or stocking or exhibiting for sale or distribution. On that basis, the conviction on section 27 failed. By contrast, failure to disclose the source of acquisition after notice under section 18A attracted section 28, so that conviction was sustained. The sentence on that count was reduced to the period already undergone, while the fine was maintained, reflecting the accused's youth, confession, and the surrounding circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether conviction under section 27(a)(i) and section 27(a)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 could be sustained on proof of mere possession of tablets without evidence of manufacture for sale, sale, stocking for sale, or distribution; (ii) Whether conviction under section 28 for failure to disclose the source of acquisition under section 18A was sustainable, and what sentence was appropriate.

Issue (i): Whether conviction under section 27(a)(i) and section 27(a)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 could be sustained on proof of mere possession of tablets without evidence of manufacture for sale, sale, stocking for sale, or distribution.

Analysis: The penal scheme of section 27 was read as covering distinct categories, namely manufacture for sale, actual sale, and stocking or exhibiting for sale or distribution. The provision required affirmative proof that the accused had manufactured the drug for sale, sold it, or stocked or exhibited it for sale. Mere possession, even of a large quantity, was held insufficient to attract the section, and a plea of guilty could not cure the absence of the essential ingredients of the offence.

Conclusion: The conviction under section 27(a)(i) and section 27(a)(ii) failed and the appellant was acquitted on that count.

Issue (ii): Whether conviction under section 28 for failure to disclose the source of acquisition under section 18A was sustainable, and what sentence was appropriate.

Analysis: Section 18A imposed a disclosure obligation on a person required by the Inspector to reveal from whom the drug was acquired, and section 28 made contravention punishable. The appellant had been served with notice but did not disclose the source, bringing the conduct within section 28. However, in view of the appellant's youth, confession, and the circumstances of the case, no deterrent sentence was considered necessary, and the sentence already undergone was treated as sufficient while maintaining the fine.

Conclusion: The conviction under section 28 was upheld, but the sentence was confined to the period already undergone and the fine was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the conviction under section 27 was set aside, while the conviction under section 28 was sustained with modification of sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, mere possession of a drug is not enough; the prosecution must affirmatively prove manufacture for sale, sale, or stocking or exhibiting for sale or distribution before liability can arise.

---