A K DASS GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has been found guilty under the provisions of S. 18-A read with S. 26, 18-C read with Section 27 (a) (ii) and Rules 65 (17 and 65 (18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and sentenced to suffer one year's R1 and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 in default to undergo R1 for six months. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the Sessions court and a further revision was also dismissed by the High court.

(2.) The appellant had no licence for selling or distributing the allopathic medicines under the Act. On 5/09/1979, Public Witness 1, the Drugs Inspector followed by Public Witness 2, another Drugs Inspector and Public Witness 3, a Deputy State Drugs Controller visited the premises of the appellant. They found the appellant giving medicines to some of the patients who were sitting there, though he had no licence for medical practitioner or for selling the medicines. The Officers disclosed their identity and made a search and they recorded some items of medicines (Ex. P-2 and some other items (Ex. P-3 and the list was prepared under prescribed Form 16. A complaint was lodged thereafter. The accused denied the offence and stated that the case was foisted on him. PWs 1 to 3 deposed that they found number of medicines in the almirah and in respect of some items, the date has expired and after seizure of the medicines, copies of the seizure reports were given to the accused and the medicines seized were packed and they were sent to the Judicial Magistrate. The evidence of all the three witnesses has been believed by all the courts below.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that what was seized was only some quantity and from such seizure alone it cannot be inferred that the appellant was selling the medicines or they were meant for sale and, therefore, the ingredients of the penal S. are not attracted. We see no force in this submission. The two seizure lists themselves go to show that there were different kinds of allopathic drugs in his possession and without having any licence and as rightly held by the courts below, they were not meant for personal use particularly in view of the fact that number of patients were also sitting at the time of premises being searched. This evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellant was not only practising as medical practitioner without any registration but also distributing the medicines without having any licence. Therefore, all the ingredients of the penal S. are made out.