Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 622 (RAJ)

KASHI RAM RATHORE v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2018-02-22

SABINA

body2018
JUDGMENT : SABINA, J. 1. Petitioner had faced trial qua offence punishable under Section 18-c read with Section 27-(b)(ii) and 18-A read with Section 28 of the The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. Trial court vide judgment/order dated 20.8.2001 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 18-c read with Section 27-(b)(ii) and 18-A read with Section 28 of the Act. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 4.6.2004. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. There was no material on record to establish that the petitioner had stocked the medicines-in question for the purposes of sale. None of the medicines were found to be adulterated or misbranded. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1979) 1 Supreme Court Cases 568 in case of Mohd, Shabir v. State of Maharashtra, decided on 17 January, 1979, wherein, it was held as under:- "On an interpretation of section 27, it seems to us that the arguments of Mr. Singh are well founded and must prevail. The words used in section 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 postulate 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 merely stocking the drugs but stocking the drugs for the purpose of sale and unless all the ingredients of this category are satisfied, section 27 of the Act would be attracted. In the present case there is 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. In the present case there is 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 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 content on is wholly untenable and must be rejected. The inter predation sought to be placed by Shri Khanna does flow from a true and proper interpretation of section 27. We, therefore, hold that before a person can be liable for prosecution or conviction under section 27 (a) (i) (ii) read with section 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 appear to be punishable under any of the provisions of the Act. If, therefore, the essential ingredients of section 27 are satisfied the plea of guilty cannot lead the Court to convict the appellant." Learned state counsel has opposed the petition. 4. Prosecution story in brief is that on 10.07.1998, the shop of the petitioner was raided by the officials. Petitioner was found present in the shop. Petitioner had stored/displayed various medicines in his shop on the racks. Petitioner had told that he was running the shop for the last two months and was providing treatment to the patients on payment of necessary fee. On the day of raid, some patients were found sitting in the shop of the petitioner. However, petitioner could produce any licence authorising him to stock or sell the medicines recovered from his shop. Petitioner had also failed to show any valid licence to impart treatment to the patients. 5. During trial, PW-1 Chatarbhuj, PW-2 Rajkamal Chippa, PW-3 Devendra Garg, PW-4 Bhairo Singh deposed as per the prosecution story. 6. Thus, in the present case, from the statements of the witnesses recorded during trial, it was evident that the petitioner had stocked various allopathic medicines in his shop and was imparting treatment to the patients. 5. During trial, PW-1 Chatarbhuj, PW-2 Rajkamal Chippa, PW-3 Devendra Garg, PW-4 Bhairo Singh deposed as per the prosecution story. 6. Thus, in the present case, from the statements of the witnesses recorded during trial, it was evident that the petitioner had stocked various allopathic medicines in his shop and was imparting treatment to the patients. Petitioner was having any valid licence to stock or sell the medicines-in-question or impart treatment. 7. There is no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no charge against the petitioner that he had kept the medicines for sale. In-fact, as per the prosecution story, petitioner was giving treatment to the patients at the time of the raid and in this regard necessary charge was framed against the petitioner. 8. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner as it is based on different facts. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, both the courts below after appreciating the evidence on record, have rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner with regard to charges framed against him. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Petitioner has undergone about one month and twenty days of actual sentence. However, the said argument is liable to be rejected as the petitioner has been imposed minimum sentence provided under Section 27-(b)(ii) of the Act. 11. No ground for interference by this court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is made out.