PRABHUDAS KALYANJI ADHIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which arises in this appeal filed by Prabhudas Kal-yanji Adhia against his conviction under Section 18 (c) read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for manufacturing, stocking and selling on July 15, 1966 the substance which he described as 'd. D. T. compound" without a licence under the said Act is, whether the said D. D. T. compound is a drug within the meaning of that Act.

(2.) THE accused did not dispute that at the relevant time he was manufacturing stocking and selling at 121, Parel Tank Road, Parel, Bombay 12, as proprietor of M/s. Hill Side Products D. D. T. compound, but he denied that the substance which he was manufacturing or selling was intended to be used for the destruction of vermin or insects which cause disease in human beings or animals as mentioned in a notification of the Government, of India under Section 3 (b) (ii ). He relied on a label which was used on his product which he produced. On one side of the label there is a picture of a theatre and it is written: "theatre Brand d. D. T. Co. Technical DOT cum Malathion superior Quality hill-side Products, Bombay. " on another side of the label it is written:

(3.) THE learned Magistrate was of the view that notwithstanding the contents of the label, the substance manufactured by the accused was drug. It is argued before me that the finding of the learned Magistrate was not right firstly because the report of the Public Analyst did not mention the protocol test and secondly because the substance manufactured, stocked and sold by the accused was not for medicinal use and the learned Magistrate erred in relying on the report and in nolding in spite of what was mentioned in the label that the D. D, T, compound sold by the accused was drug.