9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under Section 18(c) read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for manufacturing, stocking, and selling a substance described as 'D. D. T. compound' without a license. Analysis: The main issue in this appeal was whether the 'D. D. T. compound' manufactured and sold by the appellant qualified as a drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The appellant admitted to manufacturing and selling the compound but argued that it was not intended for medicinal use. He relied on the label of the product, which stated it was not for medical use and was meant for controlling pests other than those causing disease in humans or animals. The appellant also contested the reliance on the report of the Public Analyst, claiming it did not mention the protocol test, rendering it useless as evidence. The Magistrate, despite the label's contents, found the substance to be a drug. The appellant's conviction under Section 18(c) read with Section 27 of the Act was based on this determination, resulting in a one-day simple imprisonment and a fine. The appellate judge acknowledged the Magistrate's error in relying on the incomplete report but upheld the conviction based on the appellant's admission that the compound contained D.D.T., a well-known drug. The judge emphasized that statutes are presumed to use words in their popular sense, and the Act aims to regulate the import, manufacture, and sale of drugs and cosmetics without an exhaustive definition of 'drug.' Referring to legal sources, the judge highlighted that the determination of whether an article is a drug depends on its use as medicine, not solely on its composition or labeling. In this case, the appellant's admission regarding the presence of D.D.T. in the compound, coupled with the common and dictionary meanings of 'drug,' led the judge to conclude that the substance qualified as a drug, regardless of government notification or specific chemical ingredients. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
|
