P.D. PURI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has arisen out of the complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Delhi Administration, under Sec. 27(a) read with Sec. 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereafter called "the Act").

(2.) The Drugs Inspector stated in the complaint that he had recovered items 1 to 23 mentioned in the recovery memo which were drugs within the meaning of Sec. 3(b) of the Act and that had been done on the 23rd of February, 1972. The Drugs were recovered from the premises of the petitioner. Certain bills and cash -memos were also recovered which disclosed the sources from which the drugs had been purchased by the petitioner. A recovery memo was prepared in respect thereof. The Drugs Inspector made inquiries from the firms from which the drugs had been purchased by the petitioner. In paragraph 6 the complaint alleged : -

(3.) The trial court after taking cognizance of the complaint issued process in consequence whereof the accused appeared on the 11th of September, 1972, and was ordered to be released on furnishing a bail -bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000.00 with one surety. After the prosecution closed its evidence the accused was examined under Sec. 342 of the Old Code of Criminal Procedure, which was then in vogue. I have perused that statement. The accused i.e. the petitioner before me was very forthright and truthful in answering the questions put to him. He admitted that the drugs mentioned in the question put to him in that respect had been recovered from his premises and that he was practicing as a private medical practitioner. He also admitted that he did not have any license either to keep the drugs or to practice as a private medical practitioner. When he was asked why the case had been brought against him, he again made a significantly truthful statement. He stated : - "The case has been made by the Department as I was dealing with the drugs without license." He was asked whether he had anything else to say. In reply to that question the accused -petitioner stated that he was a member of the Private Medical Practitioners Association of India (Registered) and that some of the State Governments had recognized persons who had qualifications similar to his to practice as registered medical practitioner, but that had been done in some of the States and in other States negotiations were going on for obtaining recognizance of persons of the petitioner's qualifications to practice as medical practitioners. He further stated (hat negotiations were going on with the Central Government and the Delhi Administration. That statement he made on the 22nd of December!, 1973. Thereafter an application was made on behalf of the petitioner for examining certain witnesses drawn from various States. The order which disposed of the said application mentions that the accused wanted to examine witnesses which were to come from Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. He wanted to examine the Joint Secretaries and Secretaries of the Governments of States. The petitioners wanted to prove that in those States persons of his qualifications had been given the right to practice as medical practitioners. By his order dated the 14th of March, 1974, the trial magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the proof which the petitioners sought to render was irrelevant to the offence for which he was being tried. The trial magistrate depended upon the statement which the accused had made under Sec. 342 of the Code in which he had admitted that he had purchased the drugs and had stocked them at his premises and although he was not otherwise selling them, the same were being sold out to his patients. He had also admitted that he was practicing without license.