Judgment : 1. The accused in C.C.No.51 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee is the petitioner. This petition is filed under Sec.482, Crl.P.C, for quashing the said proceedings. The case of the petitioner briefly stated is as follows: 2. The petitioner is a Medical Practitioner in Allopathic Medicine and he is practising in Perungalathur. The petitioner is a Registered Member of the Private Medical Practitioners Association of India, Tamil Nadu Branch,Madras. The association has been registered under the Societies Registration Act. There are nearly 2,000 members in the association in Tamil Nadu State alone. The members possess basic qualification in Homeopathy, Unani or Siddha. Some of them are also qualified Pharmacists. The Government of India has also advised the State Government to introduce suitable legislation so as to allow the members of this association who is having an experience of more than 10 years to continue their practice by regularising the same. The association filed W.P.No.7014 of 1984 for a mandamus directing the State Government to give recognition to their association and the writ petition is pending disposal in this Court. It is submitted that the State Governments of Maharashtra, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Pujab and Jammu and Kashmir have passed Notification for regularisation of the practice of the unqualified Medical Practitioners of this association. The Tamil Nadu Government in 1965 proposed a Bill and the objectives of the Bill were published in the Gazette which provides for the establishment of a Medical Council and for the Registration of Medical Practitioner of modern scientific allopathic medicine. 3. While it is so, the respondent made a visit on 7.8.1985 to the premises of the petitioner and served a show cause notice on 16.8.1985 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why action should not be taken against him for contravention of Secs.1(c) and 18(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The petitioner also submitted his explanation on 21.8.1985 and for nearly a year, the petitioner did not receive any information as to any further proceedings. The petitioner received summons from the I Class Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee summoning him to answer a charge under Sec.18(c) and 18(a) read with 27 and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Criminal proceedings were initiated on the complaint given by the respondent. The petitioner received summons from the I Class Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee summoning him to answer a charge under Sec.18(c) and 18(a) read with 27 and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Criminal proceedings were initiated on the complaint given by the respondent. The complaint proceeds on the footing that the petitioner is not a Registered Medical Practitioner as defined under Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. The respondent has given a complaint to the effect that since the petitioner has not come under the definition of Registered Medical Practitioners as defined under the said Rule, the practice of the petitioner is in violation of Secs.18(c) and 18(a) read with 27 and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. While their association is yet to be considered for registration by the Government the prosecution against the petitioner is illegal and it is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Advocate raised several contentions for quashing criminal proceedings in this petition. The prosecution under Secs.18(a) and 18(c) read with Sec.27 and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is illegal and it is abuse of process of law. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the contravention if at all, without prejudice to the contention of the petitioner, might come under some other provisions of law and that it would not attract the abovesaid provisions of the Act. According to him, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted even for an offence of practising without a valid licence since the Registration of the petitioners association is pending consideration with the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the provisions of the Act. According to him, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted even for an offence of practising without a valid licence since the Registration of the petitioners association is pending consideration with the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the provisions of the Act. Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 reads as follows: (ee) Registered Medical Practitioner means a person: (i) holding a qualification granted by an authority specified or notified under Sec.3 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 (7 of 1916), or specified in the Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956); or (ii) registered or eligible for registration in a medical register of a State meant for the registration of persons practising the modern scientific system of medicine (excluding the Homeopathic system of medicine; or (iii) registered in a medical register other than a register for the registration of Homeopathic practitioners of a Stale, who although not falling within sub-clause (i) or Sub-clause (ii) is declared by a general or special order made by the State Government in this behalf as a person practising the modern scientific system of medicine for the purpose of this Act; or (iv) registered or eligible for registration in the registers of dentists for a State under the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948); or (v) who is engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine and who possesses qualifications approved by the State Government.” Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the above definition of Rule 2(ee) of the Rules extracted above, the petitioner is a person eligible for registration under the abovesaid rule. The petitioner has been charged for contravention of Secs. 18(a) and 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Sec. 18(a) of the Act reads that no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale, or distribute. The petitioner has been charged for contravention of Secs. 18(a) and 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Sec. 18(a) of the Act reads that no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale, or distribute. Sec. 18(c) of the Act reads that no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale, or distribute any drug or cosmetic except under, and in accordance with the conditions of a licence issued for such purpose under this Chapter provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the manufacture, subject to prescribed conditions, of small quantifies of any drug for the purpose of examination, test or analysis. The petitioner was also charged under Secs.27 and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Sec.27 of the Act is a penalty provision for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs in contravention of this chapter and Sec.28 of the Act is also penalty provision for non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer etc. Therefore, the contravention as charged by the prosecution is under Secs.18(a) and 18(c) of the abovesaid Act. In the complaint, it is stated that the accused is not a Registered Medical Practitioner as defined under Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. 5. The Drugs Inspector of Chengalpattu Range received a petition dated 7.4.1985 from one A.Duraisamy of Perungalathur, Madras-63 in which it is alleged that on 20.3.1985 Baby Jayalakshmi aged one year and two months, daughter of the said Duraisamy was given treatment by the petitioner at Senthil Clinic run by him at No.13-A, Veeraraghavan Street, Perungalathur, Madras-63 and that the baby expired on 21.3.1985. The respondent sent a report to the then Drugs Inspector, Chengalpattu Range to ascertain whether the petitioner is a Registered Medical Practitioner, The Drugs Inspector M.G.Raghuraman searched the premises of Senthil Clinic along with two independent witnesses on 7.8.1985 and during his search, the petitioner claimed himself to be a doctor. The respondent sent a report to the then Drugs Inspector, Chengalpattu Range to ascertain whether the petitioner is a Registered Medical Practitioner, The Drugs Inspector M.G.Raghuraman searched the premises of Senthil Clinic along with two independent witnesses on 7.8.1985 and during his search, the petitioner claimed himself to be a doctor. The accused did not possess the requisite qualification to practice allopathic system of medicine as required under Rule 2(ee) of the Rules and the petitioner was found to have stocked several allopathic drugs for distribution to his patients at his clinic without a valid drug licence and unable to produce the purchase records for the said drugs as required under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Drugs Inspector sized the Drugs under Form 16 on 7.8.1985 under a mahazar as empowered under Sec.22(cc) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Drugs Inspector examined Duraisamy who gave a voluntary statement along with the birth certificate of his deceased daughter. On 8.8.1985, the Drugs Inspector produced the seized drugs before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee as per Sec.23(5)(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. On 16.8.1985, he sent a notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for contravention of Secs.18(a) and 18(c) of the Act. The Drugs Inspector received a reply from the petitioner through his advocate on 28.8.1985 and the reply, according to the Drugs Inspector was found to be unsatisfactory. Then the Drugs Inspector sent a report to the State Drugs Controller, Tamil Nadu on 30.10.1985 and obtained sanction order for prosecuting the accused. The accused has contravened the provisions of Secs.18-A and 18(c) of the Act punishable under Sec.27 (b)(ii) and Sec.28 of the said Act respectively for having stocked the drugs for distribution without a valid drug licence and for failure to disclose the source of purchase of the said drugs. The complainant prayed for orders under Sec.35 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in case the accused is found guilty and convicted and to have the particulars of conviction published in the newspapers. 6. The Drugs Inspector has not shown any reason as to why he inspected the premises after nearly five months from the date of receipt of the report from the said Duraisamy whose daughter was treated by the accused/petitioner and the daughter died after treatment on 21.3.1985. 6. The Drugs Inspector has not shown any reason as to why he inspected the premises after nearly five months from the date of receipt of the report from the said Duraisamy whose daughter was treated by the accused/petitioner and the daughter died after treatment on 21.3.1985. The Drugs Inspector inspected the premises only on 17.8.1985. Therefore, we do not know whether the petitioner was keeping the very same medicines on the date when the ill-fated child was treated and died subsequently on 21.3.1985. The report was filed before the lower Court only on 28.1.1985 after a long delay. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner could not be brought within the provisions of Secs.18(a) and 18(c) of the Act since he had not manufactured for sale, or for distribution. Sec.18-A of the Act reads that every person, not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall, if so required, disclose to the Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the complaint, the Drugs Inspector has not discussed about the reply sent by the petitioner and that his statement that the reply on a perusal was found to be unsatisfactory, does not reflect the contentions raised by the petitioner in the complaint. Therefore, there is no application of mind by the Drugs Inspector in considering the reply sent by the petitioner. Even the complaint does not disclose as to what was the contention in the reply and therefore, the complaint itself is prejudicial and that the complaint was filed without any justification. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment reported in Mohd. Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra Mohd. Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 MLJ. Crl. 448. That was a case decided for violation of Sec.18(c) punishable under Sec.27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that before a person can be made liable for prosecution or conviction under Sec.27(a)(i) or (ii) read with Sec.18(c), it must be proved by the prosecution affirmatively that he was manufacturing the drugs for sale or was selling the same or had stocked them or exhibited the articles for sale. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that before a person can be made liable for prosecution or conviction under Sec.27(a)(i) or (ii) read with Sec.18(c), it must be proved by the prosecution affirmatively that he was manufacturing the drugs for sale or was selling the same or had stocked them or exhibited the articles for sale. The possession simpliciter of the articles does not appear to be punishable under any of the provisions of the Act and therefore, the essential ingredients of Sec.27 are not satisfied, a plea of guilty of the accused cannot lead to the court to convict him. Unfortunately the Drugs Inspector P.W.1 even though he received a report, as soon as the child expired after treatment by the petitioner on 21.3.1985, or immediately thereafter, had inspected the premises only on 7.8.1985. It is not the case of the Drugs Inspector that the petitioner was selling or distributing the drugs to anybody else at the time when he visited the clinic of the petitioner. The complaint before this Court as filed by the Drugs Inspector reads that the accused/petitioner did not possess requisite qualification to practise allopathic system of medicine as required under Rule 2(ee) of the Rules and also he was found to have stocked several allopathic drugs for distribution to his patients at his clinic without a valid drug licence and unable to produce the purchase records for the drugs as require d under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules thereunder. The explanation given by the accused appears to have not been considered n the proper perspective and the Drugs Inspector has failed to consider the reply of the petitioner on the ground that the same was found to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, as per the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the abovesaid judgment, mere possession simpliciter of the medicines does not appear to be punishable under any of the provisions of the Act and something should be shown by the Drugs Inspector that the petitioner had stocked them or exhibited them for sale or distribution. The Supreme Court in the abovesaid judgment observed as follows: “On an interpretation of Sec.27, it seems to us that the argument of Mr.Singh is well-founded and must prevail. The Supreme Court in the abovesaid judgment observed as follows: “On an interpretation of Sec.27, it seems to us that the argument of Mr.Singh is well-founded and must prevail. The words used in Sec.27, namely, “Manufacture for sale, sells” have a comma after each clause but there is no comma after the clause “stocks or exhibits for sale”. Thus the Section postulates three separate categories of cases and no other: (1) manufacture for sale; (2) actual sale (3) stocking or exhibiting for sale or distribution of any drugs. The absence of any comma after the word “stocks” clearly indicates that the clause “stocks or exhibits for sale” is one indivisible whole and it contemplates not merely stocking the drugs but stocking the drugs for the purpose of sale and unless all the ingredients of this category are satisfied, Sec.27 of the Act would not be attracted. In the present case, there if no evidence to show that the appellant had either got these tablets for sale or was selling them or had stocked them for sale. Mr.Khanna appearing for the State, however, contended that the word “stock” used in the Section is wide enough to include the possession of a person with the tablets and where such a person is in the possession of tablets of a very huge quantity, a presumption should be drawn that they were meant for sale or for distribution. In our opinion, the contention is wholly untenable and must be rejected. The interpretation sought to be placed by Shri Khanna does not flow from a true and proper interpretation of Sec.27. We, therefore, hold that before a person can be made liable for prosecution or conviction under Sec.27(a),(i),(ii), read with Sec. 18(c) of the Act, it must be proved by the prosecution affirmatively that he was manufacturing the drugs for sale or was selling the same or had stocked them or exhibited the articles for sale. The possession simpliciter of the articles does not appear to be punishable under any of the provisions of the Act. If, therefore, the essential ingredients of Sec.27 are not satisfied the plea of guilty cannot lead the court to convict the appellant.” 9. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision, reported in Amichand & Company v. State of Karnataka Amichand & Company v. State of Karnataka, 1980 MLJ. If, therefore, the essential ingredients of Sec.27 are not satisfied the plea of guilty cannot lead the court to convict the appellant.” 9. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision, reported in Amichand & Company v. State of Karnataka Amichand & Company v. State of Karnataka, 1980 MLJ. (Crl) 577wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court that before a person can be made liable for prosecution or conviction under Sec.27(a)(i),(ii) read with Sec. 18(c) of the Act, it must be proved by the prosecution affirmatively that he was manufacturing the drugs for sale or was selling the same or had stocked them or exhibited the articles for sale. The possession simpliciter of the articles does not appear to be punishable under any of the provisions of the Act. If, therefore, the essential ingredients of Sec.27 are not satisfied the plea of guilty cannot lead the court to convict the appellant. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that a W.P.No.7014 of 1984 has been filed by the petitioners association referred to above for a mandamusdirecting the State Government to give recognition in view of their earlier proposal to do so and that writ petition is pending consideration in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if ultimately the association gets recognition by the government, the prosecution of the petitioner is premature and that it is abuse of process of law. Learned Public Prosecutor is unable to point out that the petitioner had stocked the medicines for sale. There is nothing in the complaint to show that the petitioner was dealing in distribution or selling the drugs at the time when he visited the place. The Supreme Court has pointed out that mere possession simpliciter would not amount to an offence under any of the provisions of the Act. Even the complaint does not disclose that the petitioner was selling, distributing or storing drugs for sale. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not committed the offences under any of the said provisions of the Act and the prosecution is therefore abuse of process of law, has to be accepted and I find that the petitioner cannot be stated to have contravened Sec.18(a) and 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with 27 and 28 of the said Act. Therefore, the prosecution is abuse of process of law and it is illegal. In the circumstances, the criminal prosecution in C.C.No.51 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee is quashed and this petition is allowed.