AFTAB AHMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTAB Ahmad Khan revisionist has been convicted under Section 27 (b) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by a Magistrate of the Ist Class at Lucknow. The learned Magistrate has sentenced the revisionist to pay a fine of Rs. 250 each on the aforesaid two counts. On appeal the learned Addl. Distrist and Sessions Judge, Lucknow refused to interfere with the revisionist's conviction and sentence. He has now come to this Court with this revision.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that the revisionist is the managing proprietor of a Firm of Chemists and Druggists which carries on business in the market of Aminabad at Lucknow under the name and style of M/s. Siraj Ahmad and Vakil Ahmad. The said firm has a licence for selling drugs and chemicals. On 25-8-1973 Sri S. K. Vishnoi, Drug Inspector inspected the premises of the aforesaid firm. He found some expired date medicines and some medicines, which were physician's samples stocked in an Almirah which was kept in the aforesaid premises. The lists of those medicines prepared by Sri Vishnoi are Exts. Ka-2a and Ka-2b. The Almirah in which those medicines were kept bore an indication to the effect that it contained expired date goods which were not for sale. The Inspector issued notices to revisionist's firm as required by Section 22 (c) of the Act. After the conclusion of prescribed formalities a report was submitted by the Inspector before the Drugs Controller of U. P. who sanctioned prosecution of the revisionist. A complaint was then filed against him and it gave rise to the case under revision.

(3.) THE revisionist pleaded not guilty to the accusation levelled against him. He suggested that the expired date medicines were separately kept in an Almirah which bore a clear indication to the effect that the same were not for sale. Those medicines were kept in that Almirah because revisionist's firm wanted to claim rebate in income-tax and sales tax from the departments concerned. Regarding medicines meant for physicians' sample, the revisionist's case was that the same belonged to one Dr. Bhim Sen of Azamgarh who had temporarily left the same at revisionist's shop. The revisionist had kept those medicines also in an Almirah which bore an indication that the articles kept therein were not for sale. The prosecution examined only the Drugs Inspector whereas the revisionist examined a compounder of Dr. Bhim Sen named Kedar Nath Dube. Both the courts below disbelieved the revisionist's suggestions and held that by stocking expired-date-medicines and medicines meant for physician's samples, the revisionist had contravened the provisions of Rules 65 (17) and 65 (18) of the Rules framed under the Act and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Sections 27 (b) and 28 of the Act,