1981 (1) TMI 283 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction for offenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
2. Legality of additional sentence of imprisonment for the same offenses.
3. Sentencing under section 18(c) punishable under section 27(a)(ii).
4. Sentencing under section 18A punishable under section 28.
5. Validity of High Court's order punishing twice for the same offenses with the aid of section 34(2) of the Act.
6. Conviction under section 18(a)(i) and section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
7. Sentencing under section 27(b) for offenses under section 18(a)(i) and section 18(a)(vi).
8. Conviction and sentencing under section 22(1)(c) of the Act.

Summary:

1. Conviction for offenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940:
The High Court set aside the acquittal of the three appellants and convicted them of various offenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The first appellant, a firm, was found to have 33 out of 42 items of drugs not listed in the approved list of drugs appended to their license, constituting an offense u/s 18(c) punishable u/s 27(a)(ii). Additionally, one sample of Sodium Bromide I.P. Batch No. 1 was found to be sub-standard, constituting an offense u/s 18(a)(i) punishable u/s 27(b). The appellants also failed to disclose the source of acquisition of the drugs, constituting an offense u/s 18A punishable u/s 28.

2. Legality of additional sentence of imprisonment for the same offenses:
The High Court sentenced the third appellant to additional imprisonment for the same offenses using section 34(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court found this additional sentence illegal, stating that section 34(2) imposes liability on those not directly in charge of the company's management but responsible for the offense by consent, connivance, or neglect. The further punishment awarded to the third appellant with the aid of section 34(2) was set aside.

3. Sentencing under section 18(c) punishable under section 27(a)(ii):
The High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 2000 on each of the three appellants for the offense u/s 18(c). However, section 27(a)(ii) mandates a sentence of imprisonment of not less than one year in addition to the fine unless special reasons are recorded for a lesser period. The Supreme Court remitted the case to the High Court to reconsider the sentence for appellants 2 and 3.

4. Sentencing under section 18A punishable under section 28:
The High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 2000 for the offense u/s 18A, which is punishable u/s 28. Section 28 prescribes imprisonment for a term up to one year or a fine up to Rs. 500 or both. The Supreme Court noted that no fine exceeding Rs. 500 could be imposed for an offense u/s 18A and remitted the case to the High Court for appropriate sentencing.

5. Validity of High Court's order punishing twice for the same offenses with the aid of section 34(2) of the Act:
The writ petition questioning the validity of the High Court's order punishing the third appellant twice for the same offenses with the aid of section 34(2) was rendered unnecessary due to the Supreme Court's decision in the appeal.

6. Conviction under section 18(a)(i) and section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940:
In a separate appeal, the High Court set aside the acquittal of the appellants and convicted them for offenses u/s 18(a)(i) and 18(a)(vi) of the Act. The appellants were found guilty of having in their stock and exhibiting for sale drugs not of standard quality and disposing of prohibited drugs in contravention of a prohibitory order u/s 22(1)(c).

7. Sentencing under section 27(b) for offenses under section 18(a)(i) and section 18(a)(vi):
The High Court sentenced each appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 on each count for offenses u/s 18(a)(i) and 18(a)(vi), with appellants 2 and 3 to undergo simple imprisonment for one month in default of payment.

8. Conviction and sentencing under section 22(1)(c) of the Act:
The High Court further convicted the appellants for an offense punishable u/s 22(

← Previous Next →