1974 (2) TMI 92 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, particularly Section 18(c) and Section 27(b).
2. Applicability and adequacy of Rule 62 in the context of temporary storage of drugs.
3. Legal implications of temporary storage of drugs without a specific licence for the storage location.
4. Examination of whether temporary storage constitutes "stocking for sale."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, particularly Section 18(c) and Section 27(b):
The court examined the statutory mission of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, emphasizing its role as a life-saving statute. Section 18(c) forbids the manufacture for sale, sale, stock, exhibit for sale, or distribution of any drug without a licence. Section 27(b) provides the penal provisions for contravention of Chapter IV of the Act or the rules made thereunder. The court interpreted these sections to ensure that the statutory purpose of safeguarding public health is upheld.

2. Applicability and adequacy of Rule 62 in the context of temporary storage of drugs:
Rule 62 mandates that if drugs are sold or stocked for sale at more than one place, a separate licence must be issued for each place. The court noted that the statutory forms do not explicitly provide for itinerant wholesale distributors or temporary storage depots, highlighting a gap in the regulatory framework. Despite this, the court upheld the necessity of having a licence for every place where drugs are stored for sale, emphasizing that the forms in the rules are not exhaustive and can be adapted to meet practical needs.

3. Legal implications of temporary storage of drugs without a specific licence for the storage location:
The court addressed the issue of whether the temporary deposit of drugs in a godown without a specific licence for that location constitutes a breach of the licensing conditions. It was held that storing drugs temporarily in a place for which no licence is issued amounts to stocking for sale, thereby violating Section 18(c) and Rule 62. The court dismissed the argument that a licence for a vehicle could suffice for temporary storage in a fixed place, reinforcing the need for a specific licence for each storage location to avoid criminal liability.

4. Examination of whether temporary storage constitutes "stocking for sale":
The court deliberated on whether the temporary retention of drugs in a place outside the licensed area amounts to stocking for sale. It concluded that even temporary storage intended for eventual sale elsewhere falls within the scope of "stocking for sale" under Section 18(c). The court emphasized that the purpose of the statute is to prevent the risk of spurious or deteriorated drugs reaching the public, thus necessitating strict adherence to licensing requirements for all storage locations.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction of the appellants for violating the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the associated rules. The judgment underscores the importance of stringent regulatory compliance in the storage and distribution of drugs to safeguard public health. The court also highlighted the need for legislative attention to address the gaps in the current regulatory framework, particularly concerning itinerant wholesale distributors and temporary storage depots.