Brief Facts
- A clinic run by the Appellant was inspected by State officials, revealing 29 types of allopathic medicines without the necessary sales license. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and fines for commission of offence under Section 18 (c) read with Section 27 (b)(ii) of under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
- On appeal, the Appellate Court found insufficient evidence to prove the drugs were for sale, setting aside the conviction for sale/distribution and modified the conviction of the Appellant from Section 18 (c) read with Section 27 (b)(ii) to Section 18(A) read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
- A criminal revision case was filed but dismissed. Hence the present appeal was filed.
Issues
- Whether the conviction under Sections 18A and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act can be justified in the absence of proof of intent to sell or distribute the medicines, and in light of the small quantities of drugs recovered?
- Whether the punishment awarded to the Appellant was justified considering that the Appellant was the doctor who was holding small quantity of medicine and the same the is not to be equated with selling medicines across the counter in a shop?
Held
- The Apex Court partly allowed the appeal by aside the sentence of imprisonment as awarded, and instead thereof, impose a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Appellant.
- The only aspect which remains is a non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer. We find that the quantities of the 29 kinds of medicines recovered from the clinic run by the Appellant, were of small quantity. In such a situation, non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer/person from whom the said medicines were acquired, cannot be said to be endangering public interest (which obviously, is the primary object of the prohibition in law) by allowing the circulation of such substances unauthorizedly.”
- In the attending facts and circumstances, considering that the Appellant is a doctor and also keeping in view the observations of this Court in Mohammad Giassudin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977) 3 SCC 287, we are of the considered view that imposing a sentence of imprisonment would be unjustified, particularly when the intent to sell/distribute under Section 18(c) of the Act has been held unproven. Therefore, we find it fit to modify the impugned judgment, set aside the sentence of imprisonment as awarded, and instead thereof, impose a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Appellant.
Relevant Paras
- 12 and 13