The Supreme Court in the case Palani vs. The Tamil Nadu S observed and has set aside the sentence of imprisonment which is imposed on a doctor for the offence under Section 18(A) read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for not disclosing the name of the manufacturer or persons from whom the medicines in his clinic were procured.
The bench comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing the present matter.
The court while maintaining the conviction, converted the sentence of imprisonment of 6 months into a sentence of a fine imposed for an amount of Rs one lakh.
The court in the case observed that the doctor possessed only small quantities of medicine not meant for distribution/sale purposes, thus, the Court held that the sentence of imprisonment would be unjustified.
Facts of the Case:
The court came to know that during an inspection by the drug inspector it was found that the doctor running a medical clinic possessed 29 types of allopathic medicines meant for distribution without the proper paperwork, the license for sale and when being questioned as to the source of procurement of these medicines, details remained unfurnished.
As per the appellant doctor, the medicines possessed by him in the clinic were of small quantity and were not meant for distribution or sale purposes.
Therefore, the Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court sustained the conviction of the appellant doctor under Section 18(A) read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and both these said provision concern the disclosure or non-disclosure respectively of the name of the manufacturer.
It has been stipulate under section 18(A) that the requirement for every person who is not a manufacturer or agent of distribution to disclose the name of the person from whom he has acquired such drug or cosmetic.
The Section 28 of the Act imposes a punishment for violation of the aforesaid requirement to the tune of imprisonment up to a year or with a fine not less than for an amount of Rs. 20,000/-, or with both.
The court in the case observed and has imposed the punishment imposed is six months simple imprisonment with the minimum statutory fine.
The appellant doctor aggrieved with the same, preferred a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in the case observed and finds that the 29 kinds of medicines found in the clinic of the appellant doctor were of small quantity
Therefore, the court held that there was no impending danger to the public interest due to non-disclosure of the name of the medicine manufacturer.
The bench headed by Justice Karol stated that the non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer or person from whom the said medicines were acquired, cannot be said to be endangering public interest (which obviously, is the primary object of the prohibition in law) by allowing the circulation of such substances unauthorizedly.
The court also referred to the decision passed in the case S. Athilakshmi v. State Rep. by The Drug Inspector, wherein the court acquitted a doctor of stocking a small amount of drug as the same was not slated to be equal to selling medicines across the counter in a shop.
The court stated that imposing the sentence of imprisonment would be unjustified, particularly when the intent to sell/distribute under Section 18(c) of the Act has been held unproven.
The court in its order stated that this court find fit to modify the impugned judgment, thus, this court set aside the sentence of imprisonment as awarded, and instead thereof, impose a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Appellant.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the appeal and has set aside the sentence of imprisonment and imposed the fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Appellant doctor.
The counsel, Advocates s) Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. T. Hari Hara Sudhan, Adv. Ms. Shalini Mishra, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Mr. Joseph Aristotle, Sr.Adv. Mr. D. Kumanan,AOR Ms. Deepa S.,Adv. represented the respondent.