Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2023 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1397 - SUPREME COURTStocking of medicines for "sale" - appellant is a senior doctor who is engaged as an Associate Professor and Head of Department, Dermatology in a Government Medical College, and being a medical practitioner - HELD THAT:- Considering the small quantity of medicines, most of which are in the category of lotions and ointments, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that such medicines could be 'stocked' for sale and would come in the category of stocking of medicines for the purpose of sale. When small quantity of medicine has been found in the premises of a registered medical practitioner, it would not amount to selling their medicines across the counter in an open shop. In fact, this is not even the allegation against the Appellant. Undoubtedly, the provisions of Section 18 and 27 are relevant provisions under the law, which have a social purpose, which is to protect ordinary citizens from being exploited inter alia, by unethical medical practitioners, and for this reason the punishment Under Section 27 can extend up to 5 years under the law, and has a minimum punishment of 3 years. Given the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the Appellant is a registered medical practitioner, along with the fact that the quantity of medicines which have been seized is extremely small, a quantity which can be easily found in the house or a consultation room of a doctor, no offence is made out in the present case. In fact, an exception has been created under Schedule 'K' read with Rule 123 to the rules, the Appellant ought to have been given the benefit of these provisions and such a registered medical practitioner should not have been allowed to face a trial where in all likelihood the prosecution would have failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The possession of the drugs is not disputed in this case by either side. However, this Court in the case of MOHD. SHABIR VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [1979 (1) TMI 234 - SUPREME COURT] while allowing an appeal in part and directing the release of an Appellant who had been prosecuted under the provision 18(c) of the 1940 Act, this Court observed that possession simpliciter would not itself be an offence but the prosecution had to prove the essential ingredient Under Section 27 which was that even a 'stock' of the medicine was for sale. The sanctioning authority had not examined at all whether a practising doctor could be prosecuted under the facts of the case, considering the small quantity of the drugs and the exception created in favour of medical practitioner Under Rule 123, read with the Schedule "K". All these factors ought to have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Appeal allowed.
|