State vs Dr. Anuradha Ramnath

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—The Drug Inspector, the appellant herein, filed a complaint against Dr. Anuradha Ramnath, the

respondent/accused, for the offence u/s 18(c) r/w. 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The case ended in acquittal. Hence, this appeal

against acquittal.

The brief facts are as follows:-

(a) The complainant, Sivapunniam (P.W.1), the Drug Inspector, on 22.9.1995, inspected M/s. Mahalakshmi Pharama, Madurai, who is having a

drug licence to deal with wholesale business. During inspection, it was found that they sold A.C.D. Solution to Dr. Anuradha Ramnath in violation

of the licensing condition that it should be sold to the licensed blood bank only.

(b) Based on the said particulars, P.W.1 along with other Drug Inspector, inspected the Clinic of the accused, ""Ramradha Nursing Home"", on

22.9.1995 at about 1.30 P.M. During inspection, it was found that 7 bottles of A.C.D. Solution, which is the raw material for manufacturing blood,

were stocked.

(c) The accused gave a statement that she purchased 67 bottles of A.C.D. Solution from Mahalakshmi Pharma and out of the 64 bottles, she used

57 bottles for mixing with the blood collected from the donors and administered the same to her patients for pre and post operative surgery.

(d) Since the said Nursing Home does not have the licence to operate blood bank, a show cause notice was issued to the accused. Since the

explanation given by the accused was not satisfactory, P.W.1, the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed a complaint against the accused for

the offence u/s 18(c) r/w. 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-8 were filed and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. During the questioning u/s

313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that she did not commit the offence.

The trial Court, after considering the materials, acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the A.C.D.

Solution was stocked for sale and as such, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

Challenging the said finding of acquittal, Mr. E. Raja, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by referring about various provisions of the Act

and reading out the relevant portions of the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.P-2 confession statement of the accused, would state that

the finding given by the trial Court is wrong.

I heard Mr. A. V. Somasundaram, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Though several grounds have been urged by the respective parties while making an attempt to substantiate their pleas, I am of the view that the

acquittal can be sustained on a short ground.

According to Ex.P-8 sanction, the prosecution was directed to be launched u/s 18(c) r/w. 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for having

manufactured whole human blood without any valid drug licence. In the complaint filed by the appellant, it is stated that the accused, Dr. Anuradha

Ramnath, purchased 64 bottles of A.C.D. Solution, which is meant only the for licensed blood bank, from Mahalakshmi Pharma and out of the

said 64 bottles, she blended whole human blood and transfused using 57 bottles of A.C.D. Solution, after manufacturing blood.

The charge framed by the trial Court would reveal that she was accused of having stocked the raw material for manufacturing blood and after

manufacture, she sold or distributed the same to her patients for wrongful gain.

It may be true that 7 bottles of A.C.D. Solution were recovered from the clinic run by the accused, but there is no material to show that with

that A.C.D. Solution, the blood was manufactured and sold or distributed to the patients, in view of the fact that no attempt was made by the Drug

Inspector to obtain statement from those patients in order to prove either sale or distribution.

Furthermore, the accusation mentioned in the sanction, complaint and the charge is not consistent.

As laid down in the decisions in (1) LOGANATHAN v. STATE 1992 M.L.J. (Crl.) 126; (2) DRUG INSPECTOR v. ELIAS M. PALAL

1987 M.L.J. (Crl.) 334; (3) SANAT KUMAR BASU v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 1984 Cri.L.J. 931; and (4) Mohd. Shabir Vs. State of

Maharashtra, the mere possession of drugs without the evidence to show that they were stocked for sale or distribution may not attract the relevant

penal Section.

As noted above, the prosecution has relied upon Ex.P-2 confession statement, which has been subsequently retracted by the accused in Ex.P-

7 reply.

Under those circumstances, merely on the basis of Ex.P-2 confession statement, it cannot be said that the offence alleged against the accused

is proved. Therefore, the acquittal is liable to be sustained.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.