STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PERVEEN BASSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Parveen Bassi was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, for offences under section 18(a) and (c) read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). She was acquitted by order dated July 16, 1985. The State of Punjab has preferred this appeal against her acquittal.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that a complaint was received against the accused that she was running a Maternity Hospital at Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana, in contravention of the various provisions of law including the provisions of the Act. Under instructions of the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana, Shri A.R. Salwan, District Drugs Inspector along with Dr. M.M. Jindal, District T.B. Officer, inspected the premises of the accused being run under the name and style of M/s Maternity Hospital. The accused was present. She was found to have stock of allopathic as well as ayurvedic drugs. The Drug Inspector disclosed his identity and expressed his intention to inspect the. premises. The accused produced registration certificate for having been registered with Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicines, Haryana, but she failed to produce any valid sales licence. According to the. registration certificate produced by her, she could not be considered as registered medical practitioner as defined under rule 2-EE of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. She was asked to disclose the source of acquisition of drugs, which she was found to have stocked for sale. She failed to disclose the source. Six different types of drugs found in stock were seized after complying with various formalities prescribed by the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The accused was again asked vide letter dated October 31, 1980, to produce sales licence or a valid registration certificate of being a registered medical practitioner as also to produce the source of acquisition of drugs under section 18(a). The accused, however, failed to submit any of the above required informations. Accordingly the Drug Inspector instituted a complaint dated October 31 1981 for offences under section 18(c) read with section 27 and section 18-A read with section 28 of the Act.

(3.) THE plea of the accused in her statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was one of denial. She stated that she had been falsely implicated at the instance of the brother of her late husband because of civil litigation pending between the two. She admitted that the Drugs Inspector Shri A.R. Salwan visited her premises and added that she had produced the certificate from the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicines. She denied that she was running a Maternity Home. Her further plea was that the various drugs stated to have been found in stock were not for sale.