Bawa Singh vs The State of Punjab

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—The revision has been filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions, Judge, Gurdaspur, dated 18th December, 1979, upholding the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, dated 21st April, 1979, convicting the petitioner u/s 27 (a) (ii) read with section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months

Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 18th of October, 1976, Shri A.R. Salwan, Government Drugs Inspector, visited the shop of the petitioner. He, after disclosing his identity, expressed intention to inspect the shop. On making an enquiry whether the accused possessed licence for practising as a medical practitioner, he disclosed that he was registered with the Registrar, Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicines, Haryana. On inspection, the Inspector found 200 tablets of aspirin manufactured by M/s. Sabala Laboratories, Amritsar, which he purchased on payment of Rs. 3.60. The tablets so purchased were divided by him into four portions which were made into four separate sealed parcels. One such portion of the sealed sample was sent to Government Analyst, Punjab, who gave the report that it was aspirin. After the receipt of the report, a complaint was presented by the Inspector in the Court u/s 27(a) (ii) read with section 18(c) of the Act.

The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that it was established by the prosecution that the accused had kept the above tablets without any licence for sale, which he could not do. He was consequently convicted and sentenced as stated above. An appeal against the judgment was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. He has come up in revision to this Court.

The only contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that u/s 18(c) of the Act, an offence is made out against a person if he stocks a drug for sale without obtaining a licence for that purpose. He submits that if the prosecution fails to show that the drug stocked is for sale, no offence u/s 27(a)(ii) read with section 18(c) is made out. According to him, there is no evidence in this case that the petitioner had stocked the aspirin for sale and, therefore, it cannot be held that he committed the offence even though he had no licence.

I have given due consideration to the argument and find force in it. Clause (c) of section 18 and sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of section 27 of the Act read as follows:--

Prohibition of Manufacture and sale of certain Drugs -- From such date as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf--

(a) x x x x x x

(b) x x x x x x

(c) Manufacture for sale, or sell, or stock or exhibit for sale, or distribute any drug or cosmetic except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under the Chapter :

X X X X X X

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, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes--

(a) any drug--

(i) x x x x x

(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 one year but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine :

x x x x x

(Exphasis provided by underlying)

A bare reading of the aforesaid clauses shows that the words "for sale" are also to be read with the word ''stock''. If the intention of the Legislature had been that the words "for sale" were not to be read with the word ''stock'', comma would not have been absent between the word ''stock'' and the words "or exhibit" I am, therefore, of the opinion that the words "stock or exhibit for sale" are indivisible and a person stocking a drug cannot be held guilty unless he does so far sale These sections came up for interpretation before the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Boota Singh and Others, The following observations of Fazal Ali, J. while speaking for the Court may be read with advantage:--

The words used in S. 27, namely, "Manufacture for sale sells", have a comma after each clause but there is no comma after the clause "stocks or exhibits for sale." Thus the section postulates three separate categories of cases and no other:

(1) manufacture for sale ;

(2) actual sale ;

(3) stocking or exhibiting for sale or distribution of any drugs The absence of any comma after the word ''stocks'' clearly indicates that the clause "stocks or exhibits for sale" is one indivisible whole and it contemplates not merely stocking the drugs but stocking the drugs for the purpose of sale and unless all the ingredients of this category are satisfied, S. 27 of the Act would not be attracted.

The above observations are fully applicable to the present case.

I have seen the record There is no evidence to show that the petitioner had stocked the tablets for sale. Even Shri A.R. Salwan did not state in his statement that the petitioner had stocked the tablets for the purposes of sale. In the circumstances, no case has been made out against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections.

In the result, I accept the revision petition, set aside the judgments of the Courts below and acquit the accused. Consequently, the bail bonds stand discharged. The fine, if already paid, be refunded.