Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2018 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1832 - SC - Indian LawsSmuggling - certain drugs were stored without a valid drug licence - contravention of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - non-examination of one Kamalakannan-the person in whose name the pharmacy licence stood and one Jayanthi in whose name the shop stood - Sentence of imprisonment - HELD THAT:- At the time of inspection of the medical shop of the Respondent located at 191, Main Road, Bargur on 17.12.2008, it was found that the retail medical shop was functioning without a valid licence in violation of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It was also noticed that eighty-seven items of drugs were stocked without possessing a valid drug licence. The Respondent was prosecuted for contravention of (i) Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for having stocked and sold drugs without a valid drug licence which is punishable Under Section 27(b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act; and (ii) Section 18(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for not furnishing the name of the supplier of the drug which is punishable Under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, licence is required for sale of any drug. Under Section 18(c) of the Act, stocking or storing of drugs for sale cannot be done without a licence. Respondent is charged for having stored drugs for sale without licence. Before a person is convicted Under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act, the prosecution must establish that the drugs are stocked or stored for sale without licence - On the date of inspection i.e. on 17.12.2008, when N. Banumathi, Drugs Inspector (PW-1) inspected the Respondent's shop, he did not have any licence. He only stated that he was not aware that he has to obtain the licence. When the Respondent has stocked the drugs and was selling the same without licence, there was violation of Section 18(c) of the Act which is punishable Under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is a social statute which provides for checks and balances so that drugs are sold strictly only by the licence-holder or that the adulterated drugs are not sold. From the evidence of PW-1 and from the admission of the Respondent in Exs. P-4 and P-7, the prosecution has established that the Respondent did not have licence for sale of the drugs. Both the trial court as well as the first appellate court convicted the Respondent Under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. When there is concurrent findings by the courts below, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is different from the appellate jurisdiction. The High court will not normally interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, unless the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below is perverse or that the court has ignored the material evidence while arriving at that finding. Sentence of imprisonment - HELD THAT:- Respondent had stated that he was not aware that he has to obtain a licence for sale of drugs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice proviso to Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act can be invoked and the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed upon the Respondent is reduced to three months. The conviction of the Respondent Under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is affirmed and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him is reduced to three months, while maintaining the fine of ₹ 5,000/- - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|