LI Network
Published on: February 15, 2024 at 17:41 IST
The Supreme Court affirmed a fine of one lakh rupees but quashed the imprisonment order imposed on a doctor convicted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, presiding over the case, deemed the imposition of imprisonment unjustified, especially considering the absence of proven intent to sell or distribute under Section 18(c) of the Act.
The appeal stemmed from a High Court order upholding the Additional District & Sessions Judge’s decision.
The lower Appellate Court modified the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s ruling, upholding the appellant’s conviction under certain sections of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, while setting aside the conviction under other sections.
The case originated from an inspection of a clinic on October 13, 2015, where officials discovered allopathic medicines intended for distribution without proper documentation.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant based on the evidence, but the lower Appellate Court overturned the conviction for one offense due to a lack of proof regarding the drugs’ intended sale or distribution.
The appellant filed a criminal revision, which was dismissed for the absence of perversity or infirmity in the lower court’s orders.
The Court highlighted that the appellant was convicted under Section 18A read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, related to the disclosure or non-disclosure of the manufacturer’s name.
The prescribed punishment for this offense includes six months of simple imprisonment along with a minimum fine.
Referencing the case of S. Athilakshmi v. State Rep. by The Drug Inspector, where a doctor was acquitted for stocking a small amount of drugs due to the insignificant quantity not constituting selling medicines over the counter, the Bench noted that the remaining aspect was the non-disclosure of the manufacturer’s name. Given the small quantity of medicines found, the non-disclosure was deemed not to pose a threat to public interest.
The Bench further emphasized that, considering the appellant’s profession, imposing a prison sentence would be unwarranted, especially when the intent to sell or distribute was not proven.
Consequently, the Court modified the judgment, setting aside the imprisonment sentence and allowing the appeal in the case of Palani v The Tamil Nadu State (2024 INSC 110).