SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a partner of the firm of the name and style of M/s. Desi Dwa Khana, Chemists, Chauri Sarak, Ludhiana. The said firm is carrying on the business of sale and distribution of Ayurvedic drugs. The premises of the firm were inspected by respondent No. 4 in the company of Shri K. S. Bedi, Divisional Inspector of Drugs Central, Faridkot, and Shri Bhagwan Singh Drugs inspector, Ludhiana. The firm was found to possess certain Ayurvedic drugs which were not manufactured by a licensed manufacturer as required by S. 33E of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act). After obtaining the necessary orders for the custody of the seized drugs, respondent No. 4 who is Inspector Ayurveda, Punjab, Chandigarh, under the Act, took them into possession. The firm was served with a show-cause notice in reply to which it sent six attested copies of the purchase vouchers to respondent No. 4 but failed to explain its position in regard to contravention of Section 33-E of the Act.

(2.) The Punjab Government had earlier on 25-2-1971 issued a notification which had the effect of prohibiting the sale or stocking or distribution, or exhibition for sale of any Ayurvedic or Unani drug other than that manufactured by a manufacturer licensed under Chapter IV-A of the Act. By a subsequent notification dated 15-1-1975, that date was specified as the date of the publication of the said notification for the purposes of Section 33-E of the Act. On the basis of the aforementioned facts, respondent No. 4 filed a complaint on July 9, 1976 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana against the petitioner and his two partners.

(3.) The petitioner filed the instant petition on the grounds that the aforementioned notification interfered with the provision relating to the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India contained in Articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution, as also his right to carry on trade as envisaged by Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The other objection raised was that the impugned notification was in the nature of an ex post facto law for the contravention of which he could not be tried and punished as laid down in Article 20 of the Constitution.