EMPEROR Vs. JAMSETJI CAWASJI CAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is necessary to pub forth the facts which have led be the present prosecution. The case is admittedly a test one, and the main question for cam consideration is whether the cocaine which is the subject-matter of the present case comes within the definition of "intoxicating drug" as set forth in Section 3, Clause (9) of Bombay Act V of 1878.

(2.) There were two lines of defence. One is under Section 62 which provides: "Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act applies to the manufacture, sale or supply of any bona fide medicated article for medicinal purposes by medical practitioners, chemists, druggists, apothecaries or keepers of dispensaries; but it shall be lawful for Government at any time, by notification in the Bombay Government Gazette, to prohibit the sale of any such article within any defined local area or place except under a license from the Collector, which shall be granted on payment of such fees and subject to such conditions as Government may deem fit to prescribe.". We are dearly of opinion that the bottle of cocaine which was the subject of this prosecution is not a medicated article within the terms of that section. It appears to us that it is a medicine per se and that the term medicated article must apply to something which is manufactured and by that manufacture is imbued with certain medicinal properties. This appears to us to be a salt of the base cocaine.

(3.) Now we turn to the second line of defence, i.e., the ground upon which the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate considered that the accused had not committed the offence within the terms of the Act.