Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2559 (MAD)

Lizy v. Drugs Inspector, Thiruvottiyur Range

2016-07-28

G.CHOCKALINGAM

body2016
ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, in C.M.P. No. 2601 of 2014 in C.C. No. 120 of 2014, dismissing the discharge petition filed by the accused on 29.10.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. 3. In this case, it is admitted by both parties that C.C. No. 120 of 2014 is pending for trial and in the said case, the petitioner is the accused for the offences under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for violation under Section 18(c) and 18(A) of the said Act and the violations are that the petitioner/accused has stocked the drugs for sale without drug license and he has not disclosed the source of purchase of the drugs seized by the complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the revision petitioner/accused is running a clinic in order to help the rural people for a low cost and giving medicines to the patients and the medicines stocked in the clinic are all only for sale and not for any other purpose. Hence, there is no incriminating materials against the petitioner/accused and therefore, the petitioner has to be discharged. But the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, without appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case, erroneously dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for discharge. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Case may be allowed. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would contend that since there are so many incriminating materials available against the petitioner/accused to frame the charge, the learned trial Judge, after considering the entire materials on record, had correctly passed an order dismissing the discharge petition and hence, he prayed that the criminal revision case may be dismissed. 6. In this case, it is useful to refer Sections 18(c) and 18(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which read as follows:- "18. 6. In this case, it is useful to refer Sections 18(c) and 18(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which read as follows:- "18. Prohibition of manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics.- From such date as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf- (a) ..... (b) ..... (c) [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 license issued for such purpose under this Chapter: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the manufacture, subject to prescribed conditions, of small quantities of any drug for the purpose of examination, test or analysis: Provided further that the [Central Government] may, after consultation with the Board, by notification in the Official Gazette, permit, subject to any conditions specified in the notification, the [manufacture for sale or for distribution, sale, stocking or exhibiting or offering for sale] or distribution of any drug or class of drugs not being of standard quality. 18-A. Disclosure of the name of the manufacturer, etc.- 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.]" 7. Further, it is useful to refer Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which read as follows:- 27. Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter.- Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes,- (a) ..... (b) any drug – (i) ...... Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter.- Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes,- (a) ..... (b) any drug – (i) ...... (ii) without a valid license as required under clause (c) of section 18, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall [not be less than three years but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more]: Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of [less than three years and of fine of less than one lakh rupees]. 28. Penalty for non-disclosure of the name of the manufacture, etc.- Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 18-A [or section 24] shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or [with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees or with both]]." 8. In this case, on a reading of the entire papers submitted by the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner has given a letter to the Drugs Inspector, Thiruvottiyur Range, which reads as follows:- “XXX XXX XXX” 9. On a reading of the above letter, it is clear that the petitioner has purchased medicines from one Saravana Medicals, and selling the same to the patients at the M.R.P. rate and further, the petitioner has also giving treatment to the patients. The petitioner has also produced another letter sent to the Drugs Inspector, Thiruvottiyur Range, which is annexed in the typed set of papers and prays for further time to produce the documents for purchasing medicines. 10. From the above said letters written by the petitioner to the Drug Inspector, it is clear that the petitioner has purchased medicines from one Sarava Stores and stocked the medicines in her clinic and distributing the same to the needy persons. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has no licence for purchasing and selling the medicines to the patients. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has no licence for purchasing and selling the medicines to the patients. Further, in this case, on a perusal of the statements given by P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that the petitioner has kept the medicines in her clinic without lincence and she did not disclose the name of the manufacturer from whom the medicines were purchased by her. Further, P.W.1 has deposed that even though the petitioner has stated that she has purchased the medicines from one Saravana Medicals, she has not given any documentary evidence. At the present stage, it is not necessary to see whether the charges are proved. On a reading of the entire records and the statement of the witnesses, prima facie, there are materials available on record to frame the charge against the petitioner/accused. In the said circumstances, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate correctly came to a conclusion that there are incriminating materials available to frame the charge against the petitioner/accused. This Court has also perused the records produced on the side of the petitioner which would clearly reveal that there are incriminating materials available to frame the charge against the petitioner/accused. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, which does not warrant any interference by this Court and hence, the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with a direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, to dispose of the case in C.C. No. 120 of 2014, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.