Madan Lal vs State of Punjab

M.R. Sharma, J. (Oral)

Shri J.P.S. Dhillon, P.W. 3 went to the shop of'' the petitioner and demanded ten injections of Dicrystacin According to him he was given only one injection and upon this he made a complaint to Bhagwan Singh, Drug Inspector, P W. 1, who conducted a raid on the premises of the petitioner. As a result of the search it was found that the premises of the petitioner did have about 31 injections of Dicrystacir, ill#,medicine demanded by Shri J.P.S. Dhillon. P.W. 3 Some of'' the medicines, the date for use of which bad expired by that date were also found from the premises of the petitioner. It is, however, a fact that some of the samples of medicines taken from the shop of the petitioner were sent for chemical analysis and all those medicines were found to be of the required standard, nor did the petitioner demand a higher price for the medicine supplied 0 a the aforementioned facts, the Drugs Inspector instituted a complaint against the petitioner for contravention of the various provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 read with the various provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and also for violation of the provisions of clause 19 of the Drugs (Price Control) JUDGMENT 1970, punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, who vide his judgment dated November 30, 1981 and order dated December 2, 1981 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under :

For contravention of Clause 19 of the JUDGMENT punishable u/s 7 of the Essential Commodites Act One year''s R.I and to pay fine of Rs. 300/ and indefault 2 months'' R.I.

For contravention of rule 65(18) read with Section 18(a)(vi) punishable u/s 27(b0 of the Act Six months'' R.I.

For contravention of rule 65(17) read with section 18(a) punishable u/s 27(b) of the Act. One year''s R.I.

For contravention of Rule 65(18) read with Section 18(a)(vi) punishable u/s 27(b) of the Act. Six month''s R.I.

For contravention of Rule 65(5)(1) read with Section 18(a)(vi) punishable u/s 27(b) of the Act. Three month''s R.I.

For contravention of Rule 65(3)(1) and Rule 65(4)(1) read with Section 18(a)(vi) punishable u/s 27(b) of the Act. Four month''s R.I.

The substantive sentences of imprisonment were. however, ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide his judgment dated January 25, 1983 upheld the convictions of the appellant under the aforesaid provisions but reduced the sentence of, imprisonment from one year to six months for the contravention of clause 9of the JUDGMENT punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and also for contravention of Rule 65(17) read with section 18(a)(vi) punishable under Section 27(b) of the Act. However, the sentence of fine together with its default clause was maintained The petitioner has challenged his convictions and sentences by way of this petition.

In this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statement made by the petitioner under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under :

"There are four employees working at my shop and they have been strictly instructed to attend to the customers and meet their demands in accordance with the law and rules Since one of the employees could not at once locate more injections and the officer concerned who was to get administered one injection only per day after sensitivity test was requested to get the other injections afterwards and who seemingly was then satisfied, however, felt offended when probably he met the Senior Officer and all this search, seizure etc. had been done as a result of the angry mood. of the said officer. No expired drug was kept for sale. Two vials of Strepto Penicillin were left by one customer/patient who could not be given the injections on the earlier day as there was no light in the evening. So. there was no irregularity on my part or my staff. Physicians'' samples are never kept for sale. Those were separately kept and the letters of medical representative etc. have already been submitted to the Durgs Authorities''''.

Since the petitioner was having four servants at his shop, it is reasonable to assume that he has a big Medical Store. It, is the admitted case of the prosecution that from the whole shop only 31 Injections. of this medicine were ultimately recovered when the premises was searched. Shri J.P.S. Dhillon, P.W. 3, has admitted in crossexamination that he was advised to have one injection per day. He has also admitted that he had visited many other shops and nobody supplied him this medicine. In this view of the matter. the explanation tendered by the petitioner that he advised Shri J.P.S. Dillon, P.W. 3, to approach him after having the sensitivity test, does not appear to be wholly unreasonable. In any event, the offence committed by the petitioner is of a technical nature.

The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that in view of these circumstances, the petitioner be not sent to jail. In agreement with the prayer made and in view of the special circumstance enumerated above, I accede to the prayer made by the learned defence counsel, reduce the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner under all the counts to that all undergone by him and order, that he should pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The Revision stands disposed of accordingly.