9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction of applicants under Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Essential Commodities Act. 2. Classification of Boroline as a drug or cosmetic. 3. Legality of conviction under Essential Commodities Act. 4. Presence of mens rea in committing the offense. 5. Liability of partners in a firm for offenses committed. Detailed Analysis: 1. The applicants were convicted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Essential Commodities Act for contravening provisions related to the sale of a drug named Boroline without a license and at a price exceeding the maximum retail price. The Drug Inspector purchased a tube of Boroline from the firm's premises and later seized the remaining stock. The trial court convicted the present applicants, while another individual's conviction was overturned on appeal. The fine imposed was reduced on appeal for the present applicants. 2. The main argument raised was whether Boroline should be classified as a drug or a cosmetic under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The definition of a drug includes substances used for diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, or prevention of diseases. The applicants contended that Boroline, with its antiseptic qualities, was a cosmetic and not intended for curing diseases. However, the court analyzed the ingredients and uses of Boroline, concluding that it contained medicinal properties and could be classified as a drug based on its curative and preventive properties. 3. The legality of the conviction under the Essential Commodities Act was challenged on the grounds that drugs were not considered essential commodities before 1974. However, the court clarified that the Drugs Control Order of 1970 included drugs under essential commodities, making contravention punishable under the Essential Commodities Act regardless of the specific inclusion of drugs before 1974. 4. The issue of mens rea, or the presence of intent, was raised, arguing that the offense was not committed intentionally due to the difficulty in determining whether Boroline was a drug or a cosmetic. The court acknowledged the complexity of classifying Boroline but emphasized that the applicants could have been under a genuine belief that it was a cosmetic, highlighting the absence of deliberate intent. 5. Regarding the liability of partners in a firm for offenses committed, the court referred to relevant sections of the Essential Commodities Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. While all partners of a firm could be deemed guilty, the court noted that not all partners might be aware of the firm's activities. The court found only one partner directly involved in selling the drug, and considering the lack of deliberate intent, reduced the fine imposed on the applicants. In conclusion, the revision was partially allowed, maintaining the conviction of certain applicants under the Acts with reduced fines, while setting aside the conviction of others based on the analysis of the classification of Boroline and the circumstances of the case.
|
