STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PRAVIN KRISHNADAS SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sindkheda, acquitting the respondent on charges under Sec. 7 read with S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and with Cl. 15(2) of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1970. It is not necessary to go into all the details of the prosecution case, because the order of acquittal will have to be upheld on the short ground that the commodity in question is not a 'drug' within the meaning of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and therefore does not come within the mischief of Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(2.) For sake of brevity, I shall refer to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1970 as the '1955 Act', '1940 Act' and '1970 Order' respectively.

(3.) The respondent runs a shop under the name and style of M/s. Ganesh Medical Stores at Sindkheda. One Shri Bhartiya who was posted as Civil Judge at Sindkheda purchased 300 grammes of 'Syu Protein Grannules' on 23rd Mar., 1976 from the respondent for a price of Rs. 16.75ps. Under Sec. 3 of the 1955 Act, the Central Government has made the 1970 Order inter alia for regulating the prices of certain drugs. The definition of the term 'essential commodity' as given in the 1955 Act expressly includes 'drug' and the term 'drug' has been assigned the same meaning as in Sec. 3(b) of the 1940 Act. Please see Sec. 2(a) (iva) of the 1955 Act along with the Explanation appended thereto. The prosecution case was that the article purchased by Shri Bhartiya (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed commodity') attracts the provisions of the 1970 Order and that the respondent was not entitled to recover anything in excess of Rs. 15.90 inclusive of local taxes. Accordingly the respondent was prosecuted for breach of Cl. 15(2) of the 1970 Order read with Ss. 3 and 7 of the 1955 Act.