9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (9) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Saeed and Mohd. Amin. On 12-8-1971, the Drug Inspector purchased a drag named Boroline from the said business premises for a sum of ₹ 1.50 and obtained a cash memo. The Inspector again visited the firm on 20-8-1971 and seized the remaining stock of the said drug which was being exhibited for sale and stock in the premises of the said firm. It is alleged that the said firm did not possess any licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale the drug named as Boroline and it was also alleged that the price charged for the drug was in excess of the maximum retail price. A complaint was filed by the Drug Inspector on 20-3-1972 before the City Magistrate with the allegation that the firm and the partners had contravened certain provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elates to certain substances which are used for destruction of vermin or insects. The learned Counsel for the applicants argued that Boroline was essentially a cosmetic with antiseptic qualities and that it could not be used for treatment or prevention of any disease in human beings. It may also be, therefore, necessary to refer to the definition of Cosmetics in the said Act. A Cosmetic has been defined as an article which is intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled or sprayed or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness or altering the appearance. It has now therefore to be found out whether Boroline is really meant to be used as a cosmetic or a drug. 3. A perusal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended to be used for preventing of infection in cases of minor cuts and minor skin injuries From the formula as mentioned on the carton, it prima facie appears that Boroline contains certain medicines. I, therefore, find nothing wrong with the legal position as appreciated by the two courts below. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicants also urged that conviction under the Essential Commodities Act was illegal, because drug was not included in the list of Essential Commodities before 1974. This argument cannot be accepted because the Drugs Control Order was made in 1970 Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Section 7 of this Act says that contravention of any order made Under Section 3 is punishable. Thus the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d deliberately and intentionally, I think that the fine should also be reduced to half. 7. In the result, the revision is allowed to this extent that while the conviction of applicants Abdul Majeed and Mohd, Fareed are maintained, Each of them is ordered to pay a fine of ₹ 175/- under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and ₹ 75/- under the Essential Commodities Act The conviction and sentence of Abdul Moid and Mohd. Amin are set aside. The fine, if already paid by them, shall be refunded. Abdul Majeed and Mohd. Fareed should deposit the fine as imposed by this Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the record by the court below and in case of default, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
