KANWARLAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Kanwarlal was convicted under Para 15 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1970 read with Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/. by the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras.

(2.) THE prosecution case is this: P. W. 1, Rajagopal, the Drugs Inspector visited M/s, Gawarlal and Co. , at No. 3, Raghunayakalu Street, Madras of which the appellant was the proprietor on 29-4-1972, M/s. Gawarlal and Co. , was dealing in drugs. P. W. 1. during his inspection, noticed from the sale register that the appellant had sold B, P. Batch No.-NR 37 at a higher price than the maximum retail price fixed by the manufacturer ands per the provisions of Drugs (Prices Control) Order. P. W. 1 issued a show cause notice to the appellant under the original of Exl. P-1 on. 14-7-1973. The appellant sent a reply Ex. P-2 on 24/7/1072 stating that the manufacturer had not mentioned the retail price on the labels affixed to the Glycerine, fettles, that they did not know what the/ retail price was and. that, therefore, they sold the Glycerine at the price noted in the sale register which was verified by P. W. 1. In Ex. P-2, the appellant, also stated that they did not willfully or wantonly contravene para 15 of the Drugs Prices Control Order and requested P. W. 1, not. to take any action against them, assuring that in future they would conform to the provisions of,, the said order. Thereafter, P. W. 1 issued a show cause notice under the original of Ex. P-3 to Messrs. Scotch Pharmaceutical Works op 13-7-1972 asking them to that the maximum retail price fixed by them. P. W. 3 on behalf of the firm sent a reply Ex. P-4 on 21/7/1972 along with the price list Ex. P-5 stating that the retail price per bottle of glycerine was Rs. 7/ -.

(3.) SINCE P. W. 1 was not satisfied with the reply sent by the appellant, he (P. W. 1) seized all the bill books from the Company of the appellant and filed a complaint against him. The bills seized from the appellant showed that he had sold 80 bottles of glycerin on 24-3-1972 at Rs. 8. 75 p, per bottle and 20 bottles of glycerine on 24-3-1972, 26 bottles of glycerine on 25/3/1972 and 60 bottles of glycerine on 10/4/1972 respectively at Rs. 8. 74 p. per bottle whereas the price fixed per bottle by the firm of P. W. 3 who waa the manufacturer of glycerine in Madras was Rs. 7/- per bottle. As per the manufacturer's price, glycerine should have been sold at Rs. 5. 50 p. per bottle. The appellant was not having any retail licence.