JUDGMENT 1. 1. The appellant, Navratan Jain, has filed this appeal against the judgment of the trial court where by he has been convicted and sentenced as under: Under Section 18(i)(iv) and Section 18(c) Read with Section 27 of the Drugs Cosmetics Acts 1940. - 1 year's R.I with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, 4 month's R.I. 2. According to the prosecution, on 23-11-1975 noon, A.H. Sarswat (PW 1) Drug Inspector, Kota, inspected the shop of the appellant in village Raipur. The inspection was of M/s Navratan Mal Bachhraj where the appellant was present. Allopathic drugs exhibited for sale were available there. The documents of purchase and sale were demanded by the Inspector but the appellant failed to produce them. He also failed to produce licence. 20 species of medicines of drugs were found in the shop which were sealed. 3. A complaint then was filed against the accused in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, who committed the accused to the courts of Sessions for trial. 4. The trial court, after trial, found the accused-Appellant guilty under Section 18(1 )(vi) & 18(c) r/w Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Shri Biri Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has argued that the medicines recovered from the shop of the accused were not meant for sale, and there was not contravention of the provisions of Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 6. It was submitted that there was one Verandah in which there were two shops adjacent to each other, where the appellant was a partner. Since the shop in question was newly opened and application had been moved for getting licence which was ultimately granted and unless it was shown that Jorawar Mal Navratan Mal was carrying on the trade of medicines at a different place them the one in the case it is too much too say that the appellant whose name is also entered into the licence was found in stock of the drugs without any licence. 7. Shri Singh them argued that no dangerous drug either misbranded or spurious was found and therefore, the trial court should not have passed the sentence of substantive imprisonment. 8. Shri Mathur has opposed the appeal. 7. Shri Singh them argued that no dangerous drug either misbranded or spurious was found and therefore, the trial court should not have passed the sentence of substantive imprisonment. 8. Shri Mathur has opposed the appeal. According to him, the offence is very serious and heinous, because keeping of drugs without licence results in endangering human life and, therefore, punishment should be serious. 9. Shri Mathur submitted that even keeping the stock of drugs is an offence. Shri Mathur supported the judgment, of the trial court. 10. S.R. Krishna Iyer & R.S. Sarkaria, JJ. in Sampatraj v. State of Maharashtra, 1974 Cr. L.J. 478) observed that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. is life saving statute. In that case, the appellants were having wholesale dealership licence of drugs at Bombay and further licence to distribute the drugs through the motor van throughout the territory of the State of Maharashtra. The debate was whether temporary deposit of the goods in the godown of a local drugs dealer amounts to stocking for sale as contemplated by Clause (c) of Section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. As there was no licence for sale at a place known as Begum as their Lordships held that the storage, even though for short spells and on Haolmal adhoc basis and without intent to sell at a certain place but as part of the sales business, conies with in the scope of 'storage for sale' in Section 18(c) and Section 62. 11. Their Lordships observed that for interpreting such laws, the Court must be mindful of the mischief rule, and should not be astute to narrow the language of a statute so as to allow persons without its purview to escape its net. Whenever there is an attempt for concealment, they will in the words of Minot C.J., "Brush away the cobweb varnish, and show the transactions in their true light. 12. Their Lordships observed that if stocking is allowed without licence in any godown then it would result in storage of time-expired and spurious products of drugs and that may be great health hazard to innocent patients. 12. Their Lordships observed that if stocking is allowed without licence in any godown then it would result in storage of time-expired and spurious products of drugs and that may be great health hazard to innocent patients. It was observed as under: "If any godown, depot or premises become the nidus of spurious, time-expired or non-scientifically stored drugs, can they be allowed to escape the coils of the penal law on the plea that they are not to be sold there, without great peril to patients? Then legal shelter for spurious drug rackets would be judicially ensured." 13. Giving a wide interpretation to 'storage for sale' their Lordships emphasising the object of law, observed, "to loosen the law on its joints is to play with life and therefore, anti-humanist. 14. In the instant case, the defence of the accused that the drugs were covered by licence of his brother's dealership, has been rightly found to be false and untenable. The inspection and checking was of the shop of Navratan Mal and not Jorawar Mal Navratan Mal. Even Jorawar Mal (DW 2) has made it explicit in the cross-examination that Navratan Mal Bachhraj has started separate business for last one year by its formation and M/s Navratan Mal Bachhraj Mal has got no licence separately. Jorawar Mal also admitted that Navratan Mal is doing the work of general grocery and is keeping medicines. Jorawar Mal admitted that Navratan Mal sits on this shop and is having separate job. 15. It would thus be seen that apart from the prosecution evidence which has rightly been believed by the trial court, even the defence evidence failed to support the accused. 16. The question which now comes for consideration is whether I should interfere in sentence. Normally, because the drugs have not been permitted or, found to be spurious or adulterated, liberal view in the matter of sentence could have been insisted upon. However, I find that the accused has been carrying on business for one year without licence for storing and selling the drugs. 17. Shri Singh submitted that his client had applied for licence and had a licence after the inspection and checking of the shop but he could not substantiate it from the record. However, I find that the accused has been carrying on business for one year without licence for storing and selling the drugs. 17. Shri Singh submitted that his client had applied for licence and had a licence after the inspection and checking of the shop but he could not substantiate it from the record. If there would have been licence even of slightly later date in the form of few weeks here or there, I would have taken a liberal view In the matter of sentence. 18. There is no doubt that the drugs dealing by the business community is not purely a commercial transactions because it involves hazard to health of lacs of people. The sale of drugs which are either not upto the standard prescribed by licence, or not manufactured by pharmacy where due care or caution is to be taken by licence or whose date has expired or which on account of any adulteration or nature of manufacturing being spurious or even which have been termed as dangerous to life to persons; may result in loss of precious life. The drugs must confirm to the standard prescribed for the manufacturing, for storing even for packing and even also for selling to the person who can purchase, and that too the quantity which is permissible under the regulations. The checking of hazard to health is one of the prime duty of the social welfare society and the Government wedded to social welfare State under the Constitution of India. Any liberal view in the matter of sentence against such persons would result in misplaced leniency which would indirectly abet the offence and the a better would not only be the law but the judiciary. I have got no doubt in the matter of sentence and there should be no leniency or any liberal view and leniency taken would provide encouragement and abetment to the accused resulting in health hazard and would be at the peril of human protection which is provided by law. It is only when the business man keeps the licence, the authorities concerned should enforce the provisions of law and compel them to maintain various appliances like provision of keeping refrigerator or drugs must be well stored ensuring that they do not make it dangerous. It is only when the business man keeps the licence, the authorities concerned should enforce the provisions of law and compel them to maintain various appliances like provision of keeping refrigerator or drugs must be well stored ensuring that they do not make it dangerous. It is true that there is no charge of drags being spurious or adulterated but in any case since there was no licence at all and the accused was carrying his business for one year, there is no escape but to confirm the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court. 19. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellant are maintained. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds. The trial court would take steps, after forfeiture of his bail bonds, to get the appellant arrested and send him to jail to serve out the sentence.Appeal dismissed. *******