https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173273 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. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:05:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173273 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 17 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173273