Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of India arose from a conviction under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for stocking for sale a misbranded drug without a valid licence. The appellant, SK. Amir, was apprehended by a railway constable at the gate of Malkapur railway station on March 19, 1966, immediately after obtaining delivery of a parcel from the railway authorities. The parcel contained 95,000 capsules of Seco Barbital Sodium, a sedative agent commonly used for intoxication and popularly called 'Lal pari'. He was charged under sections 18(a)(ii) and 18(c) read with sections 27(a)(ii) and 27(b) of the Act. The trial court, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malkapur, rejected the appellant's defence that he had taken delivery on behalf of one Mohamod Jamadar believing the parcel contained a 'science apparatus' for a school, convicted him, and imposed a fine of Rs 1200. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Buldana acquitted the appellant, holding that the mere fact that the appellant was carrying the parcel would not justify the inference that the drug was stocked for sale. The State appealed to the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), which set aside the acquittal, concluded that the prosecution had proved conclusively that the accused had stocked the drug for sale, and imposed the minimum sentence of one year's imprisonment prescribed by the Act. The appellant then appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether carrying the drug on one's person could amount to 'stocking for sale' under sections 18(a), 18(c) and 27(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, or whether 'stocking' required storage in a particular place. The appellant argued that at the highest the drug was found on his person, which was not enough to establish stocking. The State contended that possession of 95,000 capsules of a sedative proved that the drug was kept or carried for sale. The Court interpreted the word 'stock' in its plain meaning as 'to keep' and held that the injunction of the law meant only that no person shall keep for sale a misbranded drug or a drug in respect of which a valid licence was not held. It was not necessary that the drug be stored in a place; if anyone kept or carried a drug on his person in contravention of the Act and it was proved that the drug was kept or carried for sale, the act fell within the mischief of the law. The Court observed that mobile hawkers displaying their wares on their person were undoubtedly stocking for sale, and that what was intended for sale could as much be stocked on one's person as in a shop or in a godown. Keeping for sale was the essence of the matter, not the mode and manner of keeping; to keep for sale was to stock for sale. Referring to Dharam Deo Gupta v. State, AIR 1958 All 865, the Court distinguished that case because there mere stocking without purpose of sale did not amount to an offence, whereas in the present case the huge quantity of 95,000 capsules left no doubt that the drug was kept for sale and could not have been meant for personal use. The defence that the parcel was received on behalf of another person without knowledge of its contents was rightly rejected. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Statutory Interpretation - Meaning of 'Stock' - Section 18(a)(ii), 18(c), 27(a) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - The word 'stock' in these provisions does not have a technical sense but means 'to keep'; keeping for sale is the essence and not the mode or manner of keeping - The appellant was found carrying 95,000 capsules of Seco Barbital Sodium without a valid licence; court held that carrying on person can amount to stocking for sale if proved that drug is kept or carried for sale. Held that the appeal is dismissed and conviction confirmed. B) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Section 27(a) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Minimum sentence of one year imprisonment for stocking misbranded drug without valid licence - The High Court had imposed the minimum sentence of one year; Supreme Court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. Held that the possession of a large quantity of sedative capsules established intent to sell.
Issue of Consideration
Whether carrying a drug on one's person can amount to 'stocking for sale' under sections 18(a)(ii), 18(c) and 27(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence; the appellant was convicted under sections 18(a)(ii) and 18(c) read with sections 27(a)(ii) and 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sentenced to the minimum one year's imprisonment prescribed by the Act.
Law Points
- The word 'stock' in sections 18(a)
- 18(c) and 27(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
- 1940 means 'to keep'
- keeping for sale is stock for sale
- not necessary to store in place
- can be kept or carried on person
- large quantity of drug indicates intent to sell
