State of Punjab vs Perveen Bassi

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Smt. Parveen Bassi was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, for offences under section 18(a) and (c) read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). She was acquitted by order dated July 16, 1985. The State of Punjab has preferred this appeal against her acquittal.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that a complaint was received against the accused that she was running a Maternity Hospital at Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana, in contravention of the various provisions of law including the provisions of the Act. Under instructions of the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana, Shri A.R. Salwan, District Drugs Inspector along with Dr. M.M. Jindal, District T.B. Officer, inspected the premises of the accused being run under the name and style of M/s Maternity Hospital. The accused was present. She was found to have stock of allopathic as well as ayurvedic drugs. The Drug Inspector disclosed his identity and expressed his intention to inspect the. premises. The accused produced registration certificate for having been registered with Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicines, Haryana, but she failed to produce any valid sales licence. According to the. registration certificate produced by her, she could not be considered as registered medical practitioner as defined under rule 2EE of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. She was asked to disclose the source of acquisition of drugs, which she was found to have stocked for sale. She failed to disclose the source. Six different types of drugs found in stock were seized after complying with various formalities prescribed by the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The accused was again asked vide letter dated October 31, 1980, to produce sales licence or a valid registration certificate of being a registered medical practitioner as also to produce the source of acquisition of drugs under section 18(a). The accused, however, failed to submit any of the above required informations. Accordingly the Drug Inspector instituted a complaint dated October 31 1981 for offences under section 18(c) read with section 27 and section 18A read with section 28 of the Act.

The prosecution examined Shri A.H. Salwan, District Drugs Inspector (PW1), Dr. M.M. Jindal (PW2) was Dev Raj Peon (PW3), besides producing documentary evidence.

The plea of the accused in her statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was one of denial. She stated that she had been falsely implicated at the instance of the brother of her late husband because of civil litigation pending between the two. She admitted that the Drugs Inspector Shri A.R. Salwan visited her premises and added that she had produced the certificate from the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicines. She denied that she was running a Maternity Home. Her further plea was that the various drugs stated to have been found in stock were not for sale.

Relying on Mohd Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 S.C. 564, the trial Court held that it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the drugs in question had been stocked for sale in order to bring the case within the mischief of clause (c) of section 18 of the Act. It repelled various contentions and found that the drugs in question were in fact recovered from the premises of the accused. The accused was, however, acquitted on the ground that there was evidence of mere stocking the drugs as distinguished from stocking the drugs for sale and, therefore, the case did not fall within the ambit of section 18(c) of the Act. In coming to the above conclusion, the learned trial Court sought to distinguish Sk. Amir v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 S.C. 469 on the ground that what was found in stock in that case was 95000 capsules, which by itself led to the inference that the same were stocked for sale. According to the trial Court, the quantity of drugs recovered in the instant case did not warrant a similar inference.

We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the records.

It may be mentioned at the outset that even learned counsel for the accused did not dispute that the trial Court had totally failed to deal with the case in so far as offence under section 18A read with section 28 of the Act was concerned. Learned counsel could put forward no meaningful argument to justify the acquittal of the accused for the aforesaid offence under section 18 A read with Section 28 of the Act. Admittedly, the accused had not disclosed the names, addresses and other particulars of the persons from whom she acquired the drugs in question. All that was contended was that the offence under section 18A, which was punishable under section 28 of the Act, is punishable for a term which may extend to one year or with fine whichmay extend to Rs. 500/ or with both. We may mention that by a subsequent amendment by Act 68 of 1982 the aforesaid limit was raised to Rs. 1,000/ but that is not relevant for the present purpose. The contention is that the accused, if found guilty of an offence under section 18A of the Act, may be let off with a small fine under section 28 of the Act.

The first point which requires determination is whether the drugs in question were held in stock for sale. This is evidently a question of fact. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that admittedly no transaction of sale to any customer took place in the presence of the Drugs Inspector, no person was sent to purchase any of the drugs and, therefore, it could not be said that the drugs were in stock for sale. We consider it necessary to reproduce in extenso the details of the drugs seized in the present case :

"1. 8 x 0.5 ml Pitocin, oxylocin Injection I.P. Lot H 568 E.

13 x 2 nil Quinine dehydrochloride Infection I.P. B. No. 912 (National Lab.)

2 x 30 ml Culoroguine Phosphate I Injection B.P. B. No. C969 (Synthetic Organics)

1000 tab. Venis Multitoze tablets B. No. 1894 (Veniyon Lab.)

Approx 200 tab. Sodagingers mint. Lot No. 01568 (Alembic)

Approx 200 ml chloroform spirit I.P. B.No. 82."

A perusal of the above details is enough to show that such a quantity of drugs could not possibly be stocked for personal use. The other circumstance of the case is that the accused is registered with the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine and she had in stock some ayurvedic drugs as well. This is not a case in which the accused may have tried to show that because of the peculiar facts and circumstances, she had to keep such quantities of drugs for personal use other than for sale. Not that the burden at any stage shifted on the accused but when the Court is faced with certain facts, it is required to take a common sense view of the things. In our view, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the irresistible conclusion was that the drugs had been stocked for sale, and there was thus contravention of section 18(c) read with Section 27 of the Act. It is in addition to the fact that no argument could be raised why the accused should not have been convicted under section 18A read with section 28 of the Act. For these reasons, we set aside the acquittal of the accused and instead convict her under section 18(c) read with section 27 of the Act and section 18A read with section 28 of the Act.

Having regard to the nature of the offence, the fact that the offence took place in October 1980 and the fact that the accused is a widow, instead of awarding any sentence, we direct that the accused shall be released on probation on her furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000/ with one surety in a like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, within one month from today, undertaking to appear within a period of two years from the date of furnishing the bond to receive the sentence and in the meanwhile to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. On her failure to furnish the bond within the prescribed time as directed, the matter shall be referred by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for further orders to this Court.

JUDGMENT accordingly.