SURESH CHAND GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant had supplied to the T.B. Hospital, Now going, Sandocycline on 12-1-1972 and 4-3-1972, twelve capsules each time. In the bills for payment of the price the price came to be shown as Rs. 15.10 Nps. instead of 8.82 Nps. The applicant was prosecuted for having committed breach of Rule 15 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1970. His defence was that lie had not intentionally or knowingly charged excess price but the mistake crept in due to error in calculation.

(2.) The Magistrate trying the offence did not accept the defence and convicted the applicant for the breach of Rule 15 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1970, punishable under section 27 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The charge that he had framed also referred to the offence falling under section 27 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

(3.) The question all the same is whether the applicant is prejudiced in the trial when charge he was required to meet was under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which prescribed a lesser punishment, and he has ultimately been convicted under the Essential Commodities Act of which he had no notice and which prescribed a heavier punishment Sec. 238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old permits conviction for a minor offence though the accused is charged with a graver offence. The converse is not the Rule. Prejudice is, therefore, obvious.