9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (1) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated under Section 27 of the Act. It is also true that the offence under Section 18 is a serious offence, as the drugs which are not of standard quality or mis-branded are dangerous to public life and harmful to the community. So far as the offence of absence of licence was concerned, the offence charged against the accused is regarding failure to renew the licence. He originally had a licence; and it appears that he made an application for renewal after the time had expired and obtained the licence in April 1968. Even in regard to the absence of licence, the plea of the accused was that he had relied on M.B. Jayakar, who is also a chemist, to make the application for renewal. 2. Now, Section 34 of the Act is as follows: 84. (1) Where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been committed by the consent or connivance of the manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager or the secretary or the other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. In my judgment, the words "punished accordingly" in Clause (2) mean that the guilty person is to be punished in the same way as the company would be punished under Clause (1). Thus, unless the director can be directly held to be liable for punishment under Section 27 read with Section 18 of the Act, the measure of punishment of such guilty person must be determined in accordance with Section 34 read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a director, who is held responsible under Section 34(2) of the Act. 3. Even assuming that this view is not correct, it appears to me that the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the circumstances in which the offence was committed although he has not stated so while dealing with the question of sentence and has rightly held that it appeared that accused No. 1 was negligent in supervising the laboratory and was not directly responsible for the manufacture of the tablets. Sentence is in the discretion of the trial Court and unless it can be said to be a sentence, which is grossly inadequate, this Court cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the Magistrate. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, it appears th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
