Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a criminal appeal filed by an Ayurvedic practitioner against concurrent findings of conviction under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, who ran a dispensary at Ukhra, stocked and exhibited allopathic medicines for sale without the requisite licence. On 22 August 1977, two doctors lodged a written complaint at Andal Police Station regarding a woman who had suffered a septic abortion after allegedly being treated by the appellant. Acting on this complaint, police raided the appellant's dispensary and seized about 41 items of allopathic medicines and instruments exhibited for sale. The appellant was a practitioner of Ayurvedic medicine and did not possess any licence for the sale, storage, or exhibition of allopathic medicines. He was charged under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with the West Bengal Act of 1973. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 with default imprisonment. The Calcutta High Court dismissed his appeal and rejected his review petition. He then approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The principal questions were whether expert opinion of a chemical examiner was essential to prove that the seized medicines were allopathic drugs under Section 2(b); whether mere possession without proof of intent to sell or exhibit could constitute an offence under Sections 18(c) and 27; and whether the sentence was harsh. The appellant contended that without expert opinion the prosecution had failed to establish the allopathic nature of the medicines, and that simple possession did not amount to an offence unless the medicines were meant for sale, stocked for exhibition, or manufactured for sale. He also argued that the sentence was excessive given the long pendency of proceedings and his family responsibilities. The prosecution relied on the testimony of eight witnesses, including seizure witnesses, who stated that allopathic medicines and instruments were found exhibited and stocked in the dispensary and that the appellant could not produce any licence or permit. The Supreme Court examined the evidence on record and found that PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-7 consistently deposed about the seizure of allopathic medicines from the appellant's dispensary. The appellant offered no explanation or defence evidence. The Court held that the absence of expert opinion did not vitiate the conviction because the factual evidence sufficiently established that the articles were allopathic drugs falling within Section 2(b). The Court further observed that keeping and exhibiting allopathic medicines for sale without a licence clearly contravened Section 18(c), punishable under Section 27. On sentence, the Court considered the appellant's Ayurvedic practice, the small quantity of medicines, the eighteen-year pendency, his family circumstances, and his unblemished bail record since 1990. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The fine and default sentence remained as imposed. The bail bonds were discharged.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Proof of Nature of Seized Substances - Expert Opinion Not Mandatory - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Sections 2(b), 27 - The appellant contended that without chemical examiner's opinion the allopathic nature of medicines was not proved; Court found evidence of seizure, stock, exhibition, and absence of explanation sufficient to establish that medicines were allopathic drugs under Section 2(b), and absence of expert opinion did not vitiate conviction - Held that prosecution evidence proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. B) Criminal Law - Ingredients of Offence Under Drugs Act - Possession for Sale or Exhibition Without Licence - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Sections 18(c), 27 - The appellant argued mere possession without licence is not an offence unless medicines meant for sale/exhibition; Court held evidence showed medicines were exhibited/stocked for sale in dispensary without licence, contravening Section 18(c), and conviction under Section 27 was proper - Held that keeping and exhibiting allopathic medicines without licence constituted offence. C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Mitigating Circumstances and Long Pendency - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 27 - Considering appellant's Ayurvedic practice, small quantity, eighteen years of proceedings, family hardship, and unblemished bail conduct, Court upheld conviction but reduced imprisonment to period already undergone - Held that ends of justice met by maintaining conviction and reducing sentence.
Issue of Consideration
Whether expert opinion was necessary to prove seized medicines were allopathic drugs under Section 2(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; whether mere possession without licence constitutes an offence under Sections 18(c) and 27 unless sale or exhibition for sale is established; whether the sentence was harsh and required reduction.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Sections 18(c) and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The fine of Rs.500 and default sentence remained as imposed. The bail bonds of the appellant were discharged.
Law Points
- Possession and exhibition of allopathic medicines without licence contravenes Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act
- 1940
- expert opinion not mandatory to prove allopathic nature when other evidence sufficient
- sentence can be reduced considering mitigating circumstances and long pendency.
