STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JETHMAL HIMATMAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASES involving racketeering in life saving drugs or trading in spurious medicinal preparations for what matter, require special consideration particularly where it is demonstrated that there has been a compromise in quality or adulteration of the Drugs. Many precious lives have been lost due to spurious preparations having been administered and it is a matter of little consequence whether the fault can be traced to the manufacturer, to the intermediary or to the dealer. These are crimes against humanity and the law must approach them with a degree of utmost firmness if the rackets are to be contained and snuffed out. Even at the risk of sounding ruthless, it will have to be stated that if a gradation of anti-social offences were to be done, this category would probably top the list.

(2.) THE situation becomes all more distressful when it is disclosed that the offender is being shown sympathetic consideration by the very public authorities in whom the sacred task of safeguarding public safety is entrusted. Instances are not wanting where an unscrupulous trader even after having been booked, approaches the top authorities in the Government and they in turn agree to condone the lapse for reasons that are not difficult to understand. The conduct of such Government authorities in whitewashing grave crimes requires to be taken serious note of by the Courts because on the one hand it is completely demoralising to point of total frustration for the Enforcement Officers who see the criminal go scot-free because of the contacts at the higher level and more importantly because it is an assurance and an insurance to that and all other similarly placed criminals that such lucrative rackets are quite safe.

(3.) IN the instant case, the accused had boldly contended that he entered into an understanding with the Government that the cases filed against him by the Drugs Administration authorities for being found in possession and dealing with spurious and sub-standard drugs would be withdrawn if he agrees to surrender his licence after a particular date. Whether the licence was to be re-issued in some other name is not very clear but the fact remains that such horse trading had not only taken place but has been boldly pleaded before the Court and the amazing plea put-forward in law was that since the accused abided by his part of the contract or the understanding that the Government was estopped from proceedings with the prosecution and on the bar of promissory estoppel, the conviction ought to be set aside. What is even more unfortunate, is that the Appeal Court in this case has upheld the plea though it must be said with some degree of satisfaction that the Department has appealed against that order and brought the entire sordid episode to the notice of this Court.