9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain the proceedings. 2. Validity of the prosecution in the absence of rules for issuing a license. 3. Whether Vivigan Ointment is a "drug" under the Drugs Act, 1940. 4. Vagueness of the charge framed against the appellant. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to Entertain the Proceedings: The appellant contended that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings because the prosecution was not instituted by an Inspector under the Drugs Act, as mandated by Section 32 of the Act. The court found that C.N. Patel, a Drugs Inspector, had indeed filed a complaint against the appellant, which was accompanied by a police charge-sheet. The court held that the prosecution was competently entertained by the Presidency Magistrate since the complaint by the Drugs Inspector was valid, and the accompanying charge-sheet by the police was deemed superfluous. 2. Validity of the Prosecution in the Absence of Rules for Issuing a License: The appellant argued that no rules had been framed for issuing a license under the amended Drugs Act, 1940, and hence, he could not be convicted for manufacturing drugs without a license. The court referred to Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides that rules framed under a repealed Act continue in force unless inconsistent with the re-enacted provisions. The court found that the rules framed by the State of Bombay in 1946 were still in force until they were repealed by fresh rules in 1957. Therefore, there was a lawfully constituted licensing authority at the material time, and the appellant's conviction under Section 18(c) of the Drugs Act was valid. 3. Whether Vivigan Ointment is a "Drug" under the Drugs Act, 1940: The appellant contended that Vivigan Ointment was not a "drug" within the meaning of the Drugs Act, 1940. The court examined the evidence, including the formula submitted by the appellant to the Drug Controller, which contained allopathic drugs. The court noted that the definition of "drug" under Section 3(b) of the Drugs Act includes all medicines for internal or external use, except those exclusively used in Ayurvedic or Unani systems. Since the drugs in the formula were not exclusively Ayurvedic or Unani, the court concluded that Vivigan Ointment was indeed a "drug" under the Act. 4. Vagueness of the Charge Framed Against the Appellant: The appellant argued that the charge framed against him was vague. The court found no substance in this contention, stating that the charge was clear and specific. The court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the vagueness of the charge. Conclusion: The court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant for the offence under Section 18(c) read with Section 27 of the Drugs Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of a fine of Rs. 250/- and, in default, simple imprisonment for one month was upheld.
|
