BABU RAM GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned Session Judge, Orai, who had maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused on one count by the learned Magistrate namely the revisionist had without a proper prescription of a doctor sold few medicines to the Drug Inspector and had issued a cash memo on realisation of price from him.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, the revisionist Babu Ram Gupta is the owner and proprietor of M/s. Gupta Medical Hall, Konch. This firm was a licensed firm for selling medicines and drugs. It is alleged that on 11th Feb., 1965, Sri R.K. Arora had visited the shop of the revisionist and purchased a few medicines namely Streptopenciline injection and Cibaxol tablets without showing him a proper prescription of a registered medical practitioner. According to rules, licensed shop keeper could not sell medicines without being shown a proper prescription of a medical practitioner selling the same he had to mention the name of the Medical Officer issuing the prescription on the cash memo apart from the name of the purchaser. Other contraventions also were alleged to have been made by the revisionist but I have no concern with those allegations inasmuch as he had been acquitted for the same by the learned Sessions Judge and no appeal on this count has been preferred from the side of the State. The drug Inspector obtained relevant sanction from the Director of the Medical Health and gave an opportunity to the accused revisionist by sending him notice. According to rules the Drug Inspector submitted a report on the basis of which the revisionist was asked to stand his trial under Sec. 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 read with Rule 65(9) and 65(17) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1955 punishable under Sec. 27(b) of the said Act. The defence of the accused revisionist was that he had sold the streptopencilling injection and Cibazol tablets on a proper prescription and that on the cash memo he had noted "M.O. Konch". The mere fact that his name was not mentioned should not go against him.

(3.) Learned Magistrate disbelieved this part of the evidence and believed the prosecution story as well as the statement of Sri Arora and convicted and sentenced the revisionist on this account as well as other counts and had sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500.00 or in default to undergo 3 months R.I. The revisionist went up in appeal. His appeal was allowed on two counts except this count namely he had sold the medicines without proper prescription of a doctor. The learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction on this count and also maintained the quantum of fine awarded to him by the learned Magistrate.