SATARIO ANTHONY AZARDEO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant carries on business in drugs at the premises situated at the main road Ojhar, Taluka Niphad, District Nasik under the name and style of M/s Ojhar Medical and General stores Ojhar. He holds licence in Forms 20 and 21 for dealing in drugs in retail. Drug Inspector Shri J.S. Joshi inspected the shop of the applicant on 19-7-1977 and he found that the applicant had stocked drugs without having purchase records and some drugs were being lables or physician samples not to be sold" and "for hospital use only". The complainant Joshi passed a prohibitory order in Form 15 and after receiving reply from the applicant he visited the premises of the applicant on 19-8-1977 and seized the alleged stock of the drugs under a panchanama dated 19th Aug., 1977. The applicant was prosecuted for the offence under Sections 18(a)(vi) read with Rules 65 (4)(4) and 65(18) punishable under Sec. 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpalgoan who tried the applicant on the said charges found him guilty for those charges and he imposed sentence of S.I. for one month and fine of Rs. 100.00 in default S.I. for one month on the charge under Sec. 27 read with Sec. 18(a)(vi) and Rule 65(4)(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules ; he was further convicted and sentenced under Sections 18(a)(vi) and Rule 65(18) read with Sec. 27 of the said Act and was sentenced to S.I. for one month and fine of Rs. 100.00 in default S.I. for one month. He was further convicted for the offence under Sec. 18(c) read with Sec. 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25.00 in default S.I. for seven days. The substantive sentences were ordered to run consecutively.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1982 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Nasik. It was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik and by his judgment dated 20th June, 1984 he acquitted the applicant of the charge that he was found in possession of sorbitrate tablets marked as "physician samples not to be sold" and that he was found in possession of cash memo without full names and addresses of the patients and without signatures of the qualified - persons. He, however, maintained conviction of the applicant for the offence under Sec. 18(a)(vi) of the Act read with Rule 65(4)(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, punishable under Sec. 27 of the Act and also under Sec. 18(a)(vi) of the Act read with Rule 65(18) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules punishable under Sec. 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He maintained the sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pimpalgaon on those counts.

(3.) The applicant feeling aggrieved with his conviction maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik has preferred this Revision Application. The learned Counsel for the Applicant contends that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in finding that the applicant contravened the provisions of Sec. 18 of the Act and Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules for having found in possessions of - drugs viz. avomin tablets marked on the labels in red ink "for hospital use only". According to him, the prohibition contained in Sec. 18 and Rule 65 is meant only for the medicines bearing labels that they were meant for Government institutions and other institutions mentioned in the said Rule. He submitted that from the mere label reading "for hospital use only" it cannot be inferred that it was meant for Government Hospitals. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contends that from the label for "hospital use only" it has to be gathered that it was meant for Government Hospitals only.