MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI J.P.S. Dhillon, P.W. 3 went to the shop of' the petitioner and demanded ten injections of Dicrystacin According to him he was given only one injection and upon this he made a complaint to Bhagwan Singh, Drug Inspector, P W. 1, who conducted a raid on the premises of the petitioner. As a result of the search it was found that the premises of the petitioner did have about 31 injections of Dicrystacir, ill#,medicine demanded by Shri J.P.S. Dhillon. P.W. 3 Some of' the medicines, the date for use of which bad expired by that date were also found from the premises of the petitioner. It is, however, a fact that some of the samples of medicines taken from the shop of the petitioner were sent for chemical analysis and all those medicines were found to be of the required standard, nor did the petitioner demand a higher price for the medicine supplied 0 a the aforementioned facts, the Drugs Inspector instituted a complaint against the petitioner for contravention of the various provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 read with the various provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and also for violation of the provisions of clause 19 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order 1970, punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, who vide his judgment dated November 30, 1981 and order dated December 2, 1981 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under :

(2.) THE substantive sentences of imprisonment were. however, ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide his judgment dated January 25, 1983 upheld the convictions of the appellant under the aforesaid provisions but reduced the sentence of, imprisonment from one year to six months for the contravention of clause 9of the Order punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and also for contravention of Rule 65(17) read with section 18(a)(vi) punishable under Section 27(b) of the Act. However, the sentence of fine together with its default clause was maintained The petitioner has challenged his convictions and sentences by way of this petition.

(3.) SINCE the petitioner was having four servants at his shop, it is reasonable to assume that he has a big Medical Store. It, is the admitted case of the prosecution that from the whole shop only 31 Injections. of this medicine were ultimately recovered when the premises was searched. Shri J.P.S. Dhillon, P.W. 3, has admitted in cross-examination that he was advised to have one injection per day. He has also admitted that he had visited many other shops and nobody supplied him this medicine. In this view of the matter. the explanation tendered by the petitioner that he advised Shri J.P.S. Dillon, P.W. 3, to approach him after having the sensitivity test, does not appear to be wholly unreasonable. In any event, the offence committed by the petitioner is of a technical nature.