LI Network
Published on: February 18, 2024 at 10:00 IST
The Supreme Court overturned the imprisonment sentence imposed on a doctor under Section 18(A) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for failing to disclose the manufacturer’s information regarding medicines in his clinic.
While upholding the conviction, the Court changed the 6-month imprisonment sentence to a fine of Rs one lakh. The decision was based on the consideration that the doctor had only small quantities of medicine not intended for distribution or sale, making the imprisonment sentence deemed unjust.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol.
Background:
During a drug inspector’s inspection, it was revealed that the doctor possessed 29 types of allopathic medicines in his clinic meant for distribution without the required license for sale.
Additionally, when questioned about the source of procurement, the doctor failed to provide the necessary details.
According to the doctor, the medicines in his possession were of minimal quantity and were not meant for distribution or sale purposes.
The Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court upheld the conviction under Section 18(A) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which pertain to the disclosure or non-disclosure of the manufacturer’s name.
Sections 18(A) and 28 require individuals not involved in manufacturing or distribution to disclose the name of the person from whom they acquired the drug or cosmetic. The violation of these provisions carries a punishment of imprisonment up to a year or a fine not less than Rs. 20,000/- or both.
The Supreme Court, considering the small quantity of medicines found in the clinic, stated that there was no imminent danger to public interest due to the non-disclosure of the manufacturer’s name. Referring to a previous decision, the Court emphasized that the intent to sell or distribute under Section 18(c) of the Act was unproven.
The Court concluded, “Imposing a sentence of imprisonment would be unjustified, particularly when the intent to sell/distribute under Section 18(c) of the Act has been held unproven.” As a result, the sentence of imprisonment was set aside, and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant doctor.
The appeals were allowed, and the decision was made in the case of PALANI vs. THE TAMIL NADU STATE, Criminal Appeal No. 887 / 2024, as per the citation 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 121.