V LOGANATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C.C.No.51 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee is the petitioner. This petition is filed under Sec.482, Crl.P.C, for quashing the said proceedings. THE case of the petitioner briefly ?stated is as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner is a Medical Practitioner in Allopathic Medicine and he is practising in Perungalathur. THE petitioner is a Registered Member of the Private Medical Practitioners Association of India, Tamil Nadu Branch,Madras. THE association has been registered under the Societies Registration Act. THEre are nearly 2,000 members in the association in Tamil Nadu State alone. THE members possess basic qualification in Homeopathy, Unani or Siddha. Some of them are also qualified Pharmacists. THE Government of India has also advised the State Government to introduce suitable legislation so as to allow the members of this association who is having an experience of more than 10 years to continue their practice by regularising the same. THE association filed W.P.No.7014 of 1984 for a mandamus directing the State Government to give recognition to their association and the writ petition is pending disposal in this Court. It is submitted that the State Governments of Maharashtra, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Pujab and Jammu and Kashmir have passed Notification for regularisation of the practice of the unqualified Medical Practitioners of this association. THE Tamil Nadu Government in 1965 proposed a Bill and the objectives of the Bill were published in the Gazette which provides for the establishment of a Medical Council and for the Registration of Medical Practitioner of modern scientific allopathic medicine.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner could not be brought within the provisions of Secs.18(a) and 18(c) of the Act since he had not manufactured for sale, or for distribution. Sec.18-A of the Act reads that every person, not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall, if so required, disclose to the Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the complaint, the Drugs Inspector has not discussed about the reply sent by the petitioner and that his statement that the reply on a perusal was found to be unsatisfactory, does not reflect the contentions raised by the petitioner in the complaint. Therefore, there is no application of mind by the Drugs Inspector in considering the reply sent by the petitioner. Even the complaint does not disclose as to what was the contention in the reply and therefore, the complaint itself is prejudicial and that the complaint was filed without any justification.