Phul Singh vs State of Haryana

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

Phul Singh petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 300/, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months, under section 27(a)(ii) and rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

One Lala Ram resident of village Seikhupra Sohana made a complaint dated 29th January, 1982, to the Health Department, Haryana, against the petitioner. The same was forwarded to the Deputy State Drugs Controller, Chandigarh, and ultimately entrusted to the District Drugs Inspector, Karnal. The District Drugs Inspector, Shri R.M. Sharma PW2, along with Mansa Ram Peon PW3 visited the shop of the petitioner on 10th June, 1982, at 9 a.m. The petitioner was found dispensing drugs to the patients. He was asked to produce his registration certificate but he failed to produce one. However, he disclosed that he was registered in the State of Bihar vide registration No. 5844. The shop of the petitioner was inspected and it was found that he had stocked 23 kinds of allopathic drugs for administration to the patients. The petitioners also failed to produced any record maintained about the purchase of drugs by him. The drugs were seized by the District Drugs Inspector. However, on a notice having been issued to him on 14th June 1982, under section 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act the petitioner vide his letter dated 28th June, 1982, Exhibit P.G. submitted copy of bill Exhibit PG/1 Medical Store, Karnal, and photostat copy of registration certification Exhibit PG/2.

In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner pleaded innocence and stepped into the witnessbox in his defence as DW 1 and stated that he was a registered medical practitioner in the State of Bihar and that Exhibit PG/2 was the photostat copy of his registration certificate. This statement of the petitioner as DW 1 was not challenged by the prosecution, as he was not subjected to any crossexamination.

The Courts below came to a finding that since the petitioner did not get himself registered in the State of Haryana under the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963, so he could not plead that he was entitled to practise in Haryana. Thus, the plea of the petitioner was rejected by the Courts below on this ground.

Mr. Randhir Singh Dhankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules framed by the Central Government under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Rule 2(ee)(ii) of the Rules reads as under :

"2.(ee) Registered Medical Practitioner means a person

(i) x x x x x x

(ii) registered or eligible for registration in a medical register of a State meant for the registration of persons practising the modern scientific system of medicine excluding the Homoeopathic system of medicine."

It is not challenged by the prosecution that the petitioner holds a certificate of registration from the State Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Council, Bihar, and was duly registered as such in Bihar. By virtue of Schedule 1 to the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963, everybody who is holding a degree or diploma of any Ayurvedic or Unani college recognized by the faculty within Punjab or outside would be eligible for being registered as a medical practitioner in the State of Punjab and Haryana. In view of the aforesaid rule, the petitioner comes within the definition of registered medical practitioner and as such he was entitled to keep medicines. Consequently, he cannot be held liable for violation of section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside. The fine, if recovered, would be refunded to the petitioner.