CHAMAN LAL Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By- this writ petition, the petitioner has asked for the following reliefs :-

(2.) It is, at this stage, pertinent to refer to the Delhi Intoxicating Sprituous Preparations, Import, Export, Transport, Possession and Sale Rules, 1952, as amended up to 13-12-1961, framed under the Punjab Excise Act, 1014, hereinafter referred to as the Excise Rules. Rule 1(g) defines "Intoxicating Spirituous Preparations" to mean "the spirituous preparations declared as liquor by the Chief Commissioner's notification No. F.1 (27) 61-Fin(E)(i) dated 7-12-1961, as subsequently amended vide this Administration Corrigendum No. F.10(27)/1, Fin(E) (i) dated 13-l2-1961, and shall include all such preparations as the Chief Commissioner may declare as such from time to time". Rule 2 requires that "no intoxicating spirituous preparations shall be manufactured or prepared or possessed for sale except tinder the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence in Form M. C. 12, granted in that be half by the competent excise officer; provided that a licence in Form M. C. 12 short not be necessary if the intoxicating spirituous preparations are manufactured or prepared or possessed under a licence granted under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, and the rules framed thereunder". Rule 24 reads, "These rules shall not apply to the intoxicating spirituous preparations imported from overseas to and those medicinal preparations which contain self-generated alcohol or or are made under Ayurvedic or Unani system of medicine". By notification No. F. 10(27)/61--Fin (E) (i), made in exercise of power under clause (14) of section 3 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, dated 7-12-1961 the Chief Commissioner declared all spirituous preparations containing more than twenty per cent proof alc3hol to be liquor for the purposes of the Punjab Excise Act. The principal question to be decided, therefore, is whether or not the drug in question is exempt from the operation of the said notification by virtue of rule 24 of the Excise Rules being a drug made under "Ayurvedic ..... system of medicine". It is not disputed on behalf of the petitioner that if the medicine is not one falling under rule 24. its possession for sale would be violative of the said Excise Rules.

(3.) It is said on behalf of the petitioner that the drug is being manufactured under a licence issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh in Form L. 2 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956, framed in exercise of power conferred by sections 9, 10 and 19 of the said Act 16 of 1955, and that the licence being to manufacture Ayurvedic medicine it is not open to the respondents to contend to the contrary and are obliged to treat the drug as exempt under rule 24 of the Excise Rules. From L. 2 authorises a manufacturer to manufacture preparations specified therein. Clause (2) thereof reads: "The privilege conferred by this licence extends only to manufactu"e preparations of standard pharmacopoeias of Allopathic, Ayurvedic, Ho-noeopathic and (Jnini systems of medicine, proprietary types of medicine and all toilet prepantions". In the list of preparations the manufacture of which can be authorised, there are two categories of medicines, (1) standard preparations, and (2) proprietary preparations. "Standard preparations" are further classified into Allopathic, Ayurvedic, Homoeopathic and Unari preparations, while under the "proprietary preparations," the following particulars are required to be given-