DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. PURAN LAL AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondent accused. The prosecution case was that on February 22, 1969 the shop of M/s Light and Sound Corner at Stall No. 10, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi was inspected and certain, drugs were recovered. On disclosure by the respondent, P.L. Ahuja, that he had kept certain goods at Godown No. 4981, he was taken there and on his pointing out the godown it was opened with a key he produced. On search of the godown a number of drugs along with other articles like implements, labels and packing materials were found there and nine samples out of the drugs namely, Chloramphenicol capsules, Acistrap capsules Tetracycline capsules. Injections Pethidine Hydrochloride I.P., Neurobion Merck ampoules. Injections Morphia, Sulphadiazine tablets and Bismuth Carbonate (which are well known names of medicines) were taken. The said samples were sent for analysis. The report was that the samples were declared as of not standard quality. They were misbranded and were thus adulterated. The respondent was sent up for trial under section 27 read with section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The respondent took up the plea that the goods were not recovered; that the godown did not belong to him. This plea of the respondent has been disbelieved. The learned Magistrate has referred to the evidence of witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 3 and has come to the conclusion that it was the accused who pointed out his godown at Kuchha Chandni Chowk and also openend the same with the key which he had produced. He thus found that the drugs mentioned in Recovery Memo Ex. PC were recovered from the said godown.

(2.) We have gone through the evidence and we agree with the learned Magistrate that it has been conclusively proved that the godown from which the goods were recovered was in possession of the respondent. The recovery, therefore, must be attributed to be from the possession of the respondent. Notwithstanding this finding the learned Magistrate has chosen to acquit the respondent. This he has done on the ground that even though goods may have been recovered from the godown belonging to the respondent, it has not been shown that the goods were stocked for sale. According to the learned Magistrate section 27 makes penal stocking of drugs only if they are meant for sale and mere stocking of drugs is not an offence under section 27 of the Act. Speaking in an abstract way it may be correct to say that stocking by itself of drugs may not be penal. Thus if say half a dozen of vials of drugs are found at a residence of a person, he cannot be prosecuted under section 27 of the Act on the ground that he has stocked drugs if the same have been kept for bis personal use. This finding however of the learned Magistrate is, according to us, perverse from both on the facts proved on record and also on question of law. Public Witness .V.P. Gulati, has stated that on inspection of the premises large number of medicines and even articles like implements, labels and packing material were found from the godown. The medicines bore the usual names like Chloramphenicol, Tetracycline, Injections of Pethidine etc. Exhibit PG is the Recovery Memo prepared of the goods found in Godown No. 4981. Ex. PG showed recovery of 9800 capsules of Acistrep, 18300 capsulse of Tetracycline, 9000 capsules of Chloramphenicol of 250 mg. each, 14300 capsules of Chloramphenicol of 0.250 grams each of Pharmakon Laboratories. Malad, Bombay, another 12000 tablets embossed with the words 'SDZ' stated to be Sulphadiazine, 75 ampoules of injection Pethidine, 92 ampoules of 3 mil. injection Neurobion, one trunk and two wooden cases containing various drugs, hundreds of labels and also various vials showing the injections of various types. It is apparent that the recovery was of such a large quantity that it is impossible to contend that these goods were merely stocked just for fun of it. We can understand if half a dozen of bottles or a half dozen of medicines strips are kept by a person for his personal use so that he does not have to go to the market as and when necessary either because he needs them every day or he has a large family. But the learned Magistrate would have it that unless there was an actual witness who could say that he had purchased the spurious drugs from the respondent, it cannot be said that this large stock was being kept for sale. This conclusion is wholly unacceptable. I he observation of the learned Magistrate that manufacturing or stocking of drugs by itself is not an offence may, in abstract, be correct but this has to be determined on the facts of the case which in the present case are that very large stocks of drugs and labels were found in the godown which was in the possession of respondent accused. Such a large quantity of drugs leayes no doubt that the stock had been kept for sale. It was nobody's case that he was holding this huge stock on behalf of some recognised dealer who was a licensee, not can it be legitimately urged, as indeed it was not, that this stock was meant for his personal use. The only inevitable conclusion is, as was drawn in Sk. Amir v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 469, that all this stocking was meant for sale. The Supreme Court has made it clear in that case that no person shall keep for sale a misbranded drug or a drug in respect of which he does not have a valid licence. Admittedly no licence was produced by the respondent. Therefore, this case squarely fell under section 27 of the Act.

(3.) The learned Magistrate has relied on Mohd. Shabir v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) SC Cases 568. That case is clearly distinguishable. In that case it was found that the drug inspector had caught the accused at the railway station with. 17 plastic containers containing white coloured tablets. The accused had pleaded guilty. The goods were recovered from him when he was travelling in a strain. The Court held that the accused had no shop, nor was he a distributing agent and there was no evidence to show that he was selling the tablets or had stocked them or exhibited them for sale. In that view of the matter it was found there that section 27 did not apply and the accused was acquitted of the charge under section 27(a) of the Act. The present case is obviously a distinguishable one because here large quantity of drugs has been recovered from a. godown in which the goods were kept by the respondent along with labels for manufacturing them. No other conclusion could be drawn as pointed out in Sk. Amir (supra) excepting that these drugs were meant for sale. It would be a great traversity of justice, if even when such large quantity of drugs are found and the accused is not in a position to explain as to. why such large quantity of goods have been. kept it should still be held by the Court that it has not been shown that the goods were stored or stocked for sale. Courts must take note of the natural course of events. People do not act normally in a completely whimsical manner as to stock goods worth thousands or rupees and still claim that they were not stocked for sale.