' Z. A. CHANNA , J.-Accused Nasir Ahmad, a shop-keeper of Karundi Village, Taluka FAIZ Gant, District Khairpur, has been tried by this Court on the charge of having in his possession for the purposes of sale 20 difierent drugs, in violation of the provisions of section 23(1) (c) of the Drugs Act, 1976, and made punishable under section 27 (4) of the said Act.
' The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on receipt of information that the accused was selling allopathic drugs at his shop in Karundi Village, Drug Inspector Altaf Hussain visited the shop of the accused on 6.11-1976, at about 3-00 p. m. And, on search of the shop being taken in the presence of the accused, who was found sitting in his shop, and Mashirs Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Yaseen, the following drugs, which were kept on different shelves of the shop, were secured {{TABLE}} Oxytetracyclin Capsules 800 Caps. Approx.
Amino Salicylate Tablets. 700 Tabs. Approx. `e. A Chloromphenicol Capsules 800 Caps. Approx.
4. Oxytetracyclin Skin Ointment 24 Tubes.
5. Oxytetracyclin 2 ml. Inj. 6 Vials.
6. Oxytetracyclin Eye Ointment 35 Tubes.
7. Iodine Methyl Salicylate Ointment 12 Bottles.
8. Furacin Cream. 4 Tubes.
9. Chloromphenicol Eye Ointment. 16 Tubes.
10. Neomycin Skin Ointment. 29 Tubes.
11. Actified Syrup. 4 Bottles.
12. Actifed P. Tablets. 200 Packets.
13. Vitamin B. Compound Syrup. 2 Bottles.
14. Nikethamide Drops. 2 "
15. Multi Vitamin Drops. 3 MI
16. Streptomycine Suspension. One Bottle.
17. Chloromphenicol Suspension. One "
18. Oxytatracyclin Syrup. One "
19. Streptomegma Syrup. One "
20. Cyclazine Tablets. 200 Tabs.
21. Septran Syrup. 1 Bottle.
22. Distilled water. 98 Amp. {{TABLE}} ' A 'Mashirnama of the recovery of the drugs was prepared by the Drug Inspector, which was signed by the two Mashirs. A receipt for the seizure of the drugs, in prescribed form l6 was also delivered by the Drug Inspector to the accused, and signature Of the accused was taken on a copy of the receipt. As the accused had no licence for selling drugs, the matter was reported to the Provincial Quality Control Board, and, after obtaining permission from the said Board, a complaint was filed against the accused in this Court.
' At the trial of the accused, the prosecution examined Drug Inspector Altar Hussain and one of the Mashirs, namely, Muhammad Yaseen. Both the witnesses have supported the prosecution version and have testified to the recovery of the drugs detailed above from the shelves in the shop of the accused. The `Masbirnama, which was prepared by the Drug Inspector and signed by the Mashirs, has also been produced, as also the receipt, signed by the accused, showing the recovery of the drugs from the shop. It may be mentioned here that the Drug Inspector has not been cross- examined at all. So far as Mashir Muhammad Yaseen is concerned, he has been cross-examined, but nothing substantial has come out in his cross-examination, except that he has admitted that when he came to the shop of the accused, some medicines had already been taken out from the shelves in the shop and were kept in a carton, while other drugs were taken out and kept in the carton after he and the- other Mashir reached the shop.
' The accused, in his statement to Court, has admitted that the drugs in question were recovered from his shop. His defence, however, is that he bad not kept the drugs for the purposes of sale, and that in fact the drugs' did not belong to him. According to him, the drugs had been kept in a carton at his shop by one Hakeem Gulab Khan, but, before the said Hakeem could take them away, the Drug Inspector raided his shop and secured the said drugs. In his defence, the accased has examined Hakeem Gulab Khan, who has supported the version of the accused that he had kept the said drugs at the shop of the accused for safe custody. He has also produced a cash memo. Said to have been issued to him by Main Medical Store, Chemist and Druggist of Nawabshah, which shows the sale of the said drugs to him. This cash memo purports to be dated 4-11-1976. We, however, are unable to take notice of this cash memo. As it has not been duly proved, Neither the writer of the cash memo. Nor any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person, who is alleged to have prepared the memo. Has been produced or examined. In fact no employee of the Arain Medical Store has been examined. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Messrs General Friends & Co. (1), that copies of documents other than judicial record cannot be received in evidence without proof of signature and handwriting of persons alleged to have signed or written by them. In the instantA case, as already pointe I out, there is no proof regarding the signature and handwriting of the person who is alleged to have prepared the cash memo produced by the defence witness.
' The version of the accused thus depends on his own statement and the evidence of D. W. Gulab Khan. This witness was asked about the difference between some of the medicines, which he is alleged to have purchased, but he was unable to give the same. He candidly conceded that he does not know English and, as such, cannot read the names of different medicines and drugs. He likewise admitted that ho was unable to give the names of the drugs that he had purchased. The witness further admitted that this was the first occasion on which he had left any medicines or drugs at the shop of the accused. He was not able to give any satisfactory explanation for leaving the drugs at the shop of the accused, or having so left them, to have neglected to collect them for some days. The house of the witness is about eight miles away from the shop of the accused, and we see no reason why the witness should have kept any drugs at the shop of the accused. The most important circumstance, which belies the story of the defence witness, as also the statement of the accused, is the fact that the drugs eacured from the shop of the accused were kept in different shelves in the shop. Had the defence witness kept the drugs as trust with the accused, the accused could not have kept the drugs on the shelves in his shop or removed them from the carton or the container in which they had been brought. The very fact that they were kept on the shelves of the shop strongly indicates that the accused bad kept them for the purposes of sale.
' We are accordingly satisfied that the accused possessed the drugs in question at his shop for the purposes of sale, and we, therefore, convict him for an offence under section 23(1) read with section 27 (4) of the Drugs act, 1976. The accused is a small shop-keeper in a distant village.
Though some of the drugs, which he had stocked for the purposes of sale, are undoubted!), patent, and admittedly he has no licence to stock or possess for sale any drugs, we do not think that a severe sentence is called for in the instant case. Though as many as 22 different types of drugs were B secured from his possession, their quantity and value is small. We have also taken not of the fact that the accused has had to attend at Karachi on a number of occasions in connection with the trial of his case. He has thus already been punished for his foolish and unlawfal act. Taking all the, {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1969 SC 477 {{FOOT NOTE}} circumstances of the case, we consider that the ends of justice would be me if we impose a line of Rs, 1,000 upon the accused, which we hereby do. In case of default of payment of fine, the accused will suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The drugs seized from the possession of the amused are ordered to be forfeited to the Provincial Government.