RAM NARAIN ARORA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition challenges a judgment and order affirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner for committing offences under Sections 18(a) (ii) r/w Section 27(a) (1) and Sections 18(c) read with Section 27(a) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 (hereafter ``the Act'`) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On 3.6.1996, the Metropolitan Magistrate had convicted the petitioner of the offences and imposed the penalty of fine of Rs. 3,000/- on each count by order on sentence dated 24.6.1996.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that according to the complaint filed by the Drug Inspector then Delhi Administration, on 5.6.1971, 37 packets of "Ved Nigrah Ras" were recovered from the first accused Banarsi Dass while he was offering them for sale to M/s. Subhash and Co. That accused, in his statement, disclosed that the seized substances were received by him from the present petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Kanwar Ayurvedic Pharmacy. It was alleged that the petitioner did not possess the licence to manufacture, sell, stock or exhibit for sale the said drug "Vedna Nigrah Ras". The complainant alleged at after investigation, it transpired that the drug "Vedna Nigrah Ras" was misbranded, within the meaning of Section 17 (a) as it resembled and was likely to deceive, another drug with the same name "Vedna Nigrah Ras" Kanpur. The name, design of the label and the presentation of the drug manufactured by the accused petitioner was similar to that manufactured by the Kanpur firm which held the licence issued by the Government of U.P.

(3.) On the basis of complaint and evidence, the trial court proceeded and examined the materials which included depositions of five witnesses. The accused petitioner had inter alia taken the defence that he was manufacturing an Ayurvedic drug which disclosed on its packet the ingredients and all of the constituents which were Ayurvedic as mentioned in the First Schedule of the Act. It was contended that the Drug Inspector was empowered to prosecute within a limited mandate under Section 21 could not have initiated the proceedings in respect of Ayurvedic drugs, including Sidha and Unani Drugs.