State of Punjab vs Buta Singh

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Drugs Inspector Satinder Pal Singh Bhatia along with Dr. Sadhu Ram Gupta, Senior Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Bhagta, visited the shop of Buta Singh accused in village Akalia Jalal, tehsil Rampura Phool, district Bhatinda on 8th April, 1981, and found therein 8 types of drugs defined in this Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

2 On being charged with the commission of offences under section 27(a)(ii) read with section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, accused Buta Singh pleaded `not guilty'' thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated 24th November, 1982 learned trial court acquitted him of the charge holding that the stock of drugs available with the accused had not been proved to have been kept for sale. Feeling aggrieved therefrom State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 355DBA of 1983 in this Court.

We have heard Shri Randhir Singh, AAG Punjab for the appellant State, Shri A.S. Kalra. Advocate, for the respondent and have carefully perused the relevant material on record.

In the course of his statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code accused Buta Singh stated, "I am innocent, my mother is a patient of Asthma. It is very difficult for her to walk. My wife Harbans Kaur who is a Staff Nurse had brought those drugs to give the same to my mother. Previously we used to purchase the medicines for my mother from Dharam Chand R.M.P. of village Akalia. Several times he was not available there. For not purchasing the medicines from him, he having given a false complaint against me, has got implicated me in a false case. I do not run any shop."

Explanation offered by the accused when read along with, (i) want of specific assertion on behalf of the prosecution that the drugs had been stocked exhibited for sale, (ii) admissions made by the prosecution witnesses that the mother of the accused was a patient of Asthma and that the drugs stocked by the accused were useful for an Asthma patient; and (iii) that the wife of the accused was a nurse who could easily collect the stock of drugs aforesaid wholly exculpate the accused.

In Mohd. Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 564 their lordships of the Supreme Court observed :

"It was contended by Mr. Singh that in order to fall within the ambit of this section the accused must manufacture the drugs for sale or stock or exhibit for sale or distribute the same. There is no evidence in this case to show that the appellant had any shop or that he was a distributing agent. All that has been shown is that the tablets concerned were recovered from his possession. It was urged that possession simpliciter of the tablets of any quantity whatsoever would not fall within the mischief of Section 27 of the Act. On an interpretation of S. 27 it seems to us that the argument of Mr. Singh is well found and must prevail. 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 casts and no other : (1) manufacture for sale; (2) actual sale; (3) stocking or exhibiting for sale or distribution of any drugs. The absence 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. In the present case there is no evidence to show that the appellant had either got these tablets for sale or was selling them or had stocked them for sale. Mr. Khanna appearing for the State, however, contended that the word "stock" used in section is wide enough to include the possession of a person with the tablets and were such a person in the possession of tablets of a very huge quantity, a presumption should he drawn that they were meant for sale of for distribution. In our opinion, the contention is wholly untenable and must be rejected. The interpretation sought to be placed by Shri Khanna does not flow from a true and proper interpretation of Section 27. We, therefore, hold that before a person can be liable for prosecution or conviction under Section 27(a)(i)(ii) read with section 8(c) of the Act it must be proved by the prosecution affirmatively that he was manufacturing the drugs for sale or was selling the same or had stocked them or exhibited the articles for sale. The possession simpliciter of the articles does not appear to be punishable under any of the provisions of the Act. If, therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 27 are not satisfied the plea of guilty cannot lead the Court to convict the appellant."

Finding of `not guilty'' returned by the learned trial Court against accused Buta Singh is, therefore affirmed.

In result the appeal filed by the State fails and is accordingly dismissed.