The Appellant, in her individual and independent capacity was carrying on her medical practice at a premises which is No 87, Red Hills Road (North), Villivakkam, at Chennai.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/standing-orders-vs-cca-rules-a-legal-analysis/
Mycotin Cream 15 gms 3 Nos. 145/10gms
ESM Cream (10gms) 4 Nos.
Sold 1 409 dated 24/02/2016 Mycotin Cream Nufoce Power Certrezol – L tablets 1 No. 1 No 10 Tablets 2 423 dated 9/03/2016 Certivera Lotion ESM Cream ILor or Tablets Cetrezol L Tablets 1 No. 10 Tablets 10 Tablets 3 426 dated 11/03/2016 2 strips 4 424 dated 9/03/2016 P Scab Lotion 1 for Tablets Loxip Tablets 1 No.
(b)
[sell or stock or exhibit or offer for sale,] or distribute any drug [or cosmetic] which has been imported or manufactured in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder; (c) [manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale,] or distribute any drug [or cosmetic], except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Chapter: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the manufacture, subject to prescribed conditions, of small quantities of any drug for the purpose of examination, test or analysis: Provided further that the [Central Government] may, after consultation with the Board, by notification in the Official Gazette, permit, subject to any conditions specified in the notification, the [manufacture for sale or for distribution, sale, stocking or exhibiting or offering for sale] or distribution of any drug or class of drugs not being of standard quality.
Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter— Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes— (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (b) any drug – (i) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (ii) without a valid licence as required under clause (c) of section 18, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall [not be less than three years but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more]: Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of [less than three years and of fine of less than one lakh rupees]; 7. This is evident from the sanction being sought by the Drug Inspector from the office of the Director, Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu wherein as per the sanction letter dated 23.01.2018, he had said that the Appellant be prosecuted for the contravention of: “Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 for having stocked drugs for sale and sold the drugs without having a valid drug license, which is punishable under section 27(b)(ii) of the said Act”.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/scope-of-judicial-scrutiny-in-referral-to-arbitration/
Rule 123 of the rules exempts certain drugs from the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act (which includes both Section 18 and Section 27 referred above, which are penal provisions), under certain conditions Rule 123 reads as under: “ 123. The drugs specified in Schedule K shall be exempted from the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act and the rules made thereunder to the extent and subject to the conditions specified in that Schedule.” Drugs supplied by a registered medical practitioner to his own patient or any drug specified in Schedule C supplied by a registered medical practitioner at the request of another such practitioner if it is specially prepared with reference to the condition and for the use of an individual patient provided the registered medical practitioner is not (a) keeping an open shop or (b) selling across the counter or (c) engaged in the importation, manufacture, distribution or sale of drugs in India to a degree which render him liable to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act and the rules thereunder. Such records shall be open to inspection by an Inspector appointed under the Act, who may, if necessary, make enquiries about purchases of the drugs and may also take samples for test.] In the case of medicine containing a substance specified in [Schedule G, H or X] of the following additional conditions shall be complied with:- a.
She is a senior doctor who is engaged as an Associate Professor and Head of Department, Dermatology in a Government Medical College, and being a medical practitioner, under certain conditions, she is also protected under the law which has been referred to above. But given the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the Appellant is a registered medical practitioner, along with the fact that the quantity of medicines which have been seized is extremely small, a quantity which can be easily found in the house or a consultation room of a doctor, in our considered view no offence is made out in the present case. The learned single judge while dismissing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C of the appellant has relied upon a decision of this Court: “9. Since this was not being done as visualized above, and an exception is created under the law in favour of the medical practitioner where the drugs given in Schedule ‘K’ would be exempted from the purview of Chapter 4 of the Act, we are of the considered view that prosecution against the Appellant is unwarranted.
On the contrary, upon being served with the Show Cause Notice, the Appellant was directed, under Section 18-A, to reveal the name and addresses of persons from whom she obtained the drugs which were seized. While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint. While this court does not expect a full- blown investigation at the stage of a criminal complaint, however, in such cases where the accused has been subjected to the anxiety of a potential initiation of criminal proceedings for such a length of time, it is only reasonable for the court to expect bare-minimum evidence from the Investigating Authorities.’
Case Title: S. ATHILAKSHMI Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE DRUGS INSPECTOR (2023 INSC 237)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000804-000804 / 2023
