THE STATE Vs. ZAHID HUSSAIN KIKABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Zahid Hussain, who is the Proprietor of Zahid Cottage Industries of Nagpur, was manufacturing Bharat Gandh and Excellent Nail Polish at house No. 684 in Shantinagar, Nagpur. He had applied for a licence to manufacture the Gandh and the Nail Polish to the Drugs and Food Administration in the year 1965. However, his request was turned down. Inspite of this he continued to manufacture Gandh and Nail polish without any licence. On 6-3-1963 Shri Rajadhyaksha, the then Drugs Inspector approached, The Commissioner of Police to help him in taking action against the accused. He was directed to approach Police station authorities. Accordingly Rajadhyaksha lodged a report at the Police station. Thereupon Police sub-inspector Karim filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for seeking permission to investigate the offence. After getting necessary permission in this behalf Rajadhyhksha, Police Sub-Inspector and Panchas went to the residence-cum-cottage industry of the accused and after due search the articles, namely, empty bottles, labels, stamps for nail polish, gandh, gelletine papers etc. were seized. These were the articles required for manufacturing of Gandh and nail polish. Apart from this, some manufactured Gandh and nail polish, bill books and letters were also found by the Drugs Inspector during the course of the seizure. A seizure memo was then drawn which is at Ex. 1.7 and the photographs recording the state of affairs at the time of seizures were also taken. After completing the investigation and sanction a complaint was filed by the Drugs Inspector Rahim who took over charge from Rajadhyaksha.

(2.) It was the case of the prosecution that both these articles, namely, the Gandh and the nail polish, were cosmetics within the meaning of section 3 (aaa) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, referred to hereinafter as the Act, and the Rules framed thereunder, and as the accused was manufacturing the said cosmetics without the necessary licence as contemplated by section 18A of the Act he is liable lo be convicted for the said offence read with section 27-A of the Act.

(3.) The accused in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure admitted that in the year 1965 he had applied for the licence for manufacturing Gandh and nail polish and his application was rejected. He further admitted that he was manufacturing the said articles without the licence, The factum of the search and seizure of the articles was also admitted by the accused. He further stated that he was manufacturing Bharat Darbar Gandh only as no licence for the manufacture of the same was required. He fur the contended that he did not manufacture nail polish at any time and he was falsely implicated.