So far as the lifting of the sample and sending of it for analysis is concerned, there is not of much dispute and it is proved by the evidence of PW.1. In this case the samples, which were said to have been drawn by the Drug Inspector from M/s. Raghava Medicals, are said to have been manufactured by A.2 and A.1 is said to be the proprietor of A.2. Evidently, these drugs were not directly purchased by M/s. Raghava Medicals and they were said to have been supplied by M/s. Radhakrishna Pharmaceuticals represented by J.V. Anjaneyulu and he in turn claimed that the said medicines were purchased from the accused. The most important aspect to be considered and proved by the prosecution is as to where from J.V. Anjaneyulu has purchased the medicines, which were supplied to Raghava Medicals at Addanki. In order to sustain a conviction against the accused, it has to be proved that the medicines, which were found to be of sub-standard quality were in fact manufactured and supplied by the accused. Whether J.V. Anjaneyulu is an accused or not, the fact remains that he is the person, who is said to have purchased the medicines and supplied them to Raghava Medicals. But, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, even if he is not made as an accused he was not even examined as a witness to the prosecution. The prosecution wanted to rely upon Exs.P.17 and P.18, which are said to be the letters addressed by M/s. Radhakrishna Medical Corporation intimating that the samples that were drawn were purchased from the accused. Except this information, there is no other material to show that the samples, which were said to have been of sub-standard, were manufactured or supplied by the accused. On the other hand, as can be seen from Ex.P.25, which was addressed by V.Joseph as Proprietor complaining about the harassment and the drug being exempted. Therefore, it is quite clear that A.1 was not the
