2008 (11) TMI 442 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the goods seized were Ayurvedic Drugs can only be decided in the trial and the threshold interference by the High Court is not called for? Whether the goods in question are Ayurvedic drugs is essentially a matter for trial? Held that - Appeal allowed. Obviously a licence was required for dealing with the drugs. The mere fact that the application for licence was filed did not entitle the respondent to manufacture and/or to sell the concerned drugs. The High Court therefore was not justified in quashing the proceedings. This is a not a case where threshold interference by exercising power under Section 482 of the Code was called for.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment quashing criminal proceedings under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Analysis:
1. Background and Allegations: The appeal challenged the judgment quashing criminal proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, regarding the manufacturing and selling of drugs without a license. The accused argued that the seized drugs were Ayurvedic, not allopathic, and therefore, the prosecution lacked the necessary sanction under Section 33M of the Act. They also questioned the complainant's status as a public servant under Section 21 of the Act, among other procedural issues.

2. Stand Before High Court: The appellant contended that the determination of whether the seized goods were Ayurvedic drugs should be made during the trial and that the absence of a license was a clear violation. They highlighted the authorization of the inspector who filed the complaint and the subsequent grant of a license as supporting factors.

3. Opposing Arguments: The respondents claimed that the seized drugs were indeed Ayurvedic and criticized the delay in obtaining the license after the seizure. They argued that the High Court's intervention was justified due to technical breaches and the subsequent licensing.

4. Legal Provisions: Section 18(c) of the Act mandates a license for manufacturing, selling, or stocking drugs. The mere application for a license does not authorize these activities. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings, as the requirement for a license was clear.

5. Threshold Interference: Referring to the scope for interference under Section 482 of the Code, the Court cited the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal case, outlining categories where such power could be exercised. The present case did not fall within these categories, justifying the appeal's allowance without expressing an opinion on the case's merits.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity of a license for dealing with drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and rejecting the High Court's decision to quash the proceedings. The judgment highlighted the procedural requirements and the limitations on the High Court's interference under Section 482 of the Code, ultimately not delving into the case's merits while granting the appeal.