SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(SC) 305

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
26th September, 1962.
S.J. IMAM, K SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Chimanlal Jagjivandas Sheth, Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Rajni Patel, Advocate and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. for Appellant; M/s. H. R. Khanna, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, for Respondent.
Cri. Appeal No. 21 of 1961 D/-16-6-1961 - Bom.

Advocates:
H.R.KHANNA, J.B.DADACHAN, O.C.MATHUR, R.H.Dhebar, R.N.SACH, RAJNI PATEL, Ravindra Narayan

Articles used for surgical dressing are "drugs" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940.

Headnote:

DRUGS ACT - SECTION 3(B) - INTERPRETATION - SURGICAL DRESSINGS - WHETHER DRUGS - MEANING OF "SUBSTANCES" AND "TREATMENT" - ARTICLES USED FOR SURGICAL DRESSING ARE "DRUGS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 3(B) OF THE ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the Drugs Act, 1940, for manufacturing drugs which were not of standard quality. The appellant argued that the articles in question, which included absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages, and gauze, were not drugs within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the articles in question were "substances" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act and that they were used for or in "treatment" within the meaning of the Act. The Court found that the articles were sterilized or otherwise treated to make them disinfectant and then used for surgical dressing, and that they were essential materials for treatment in surgical cases.

Issues: Whether the articles in question were "drugs" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the articles in question were "drugs" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act because they were "substances" that were used for or in "treatment". The Court found that the articles were sterilized or otherwise treated to make them disinfectant and then used for surgical dressing, and that they were essential materials for treatment in surgical cases.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant.

Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : This appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay raises the question of construction of Section 3(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940, as amended by the Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1955, hereinafter called the Act.

2. This appeal has been argued on the basis of facts found by the High Court. The appellant was carrying on business in the name of Deepak Trading Corporation at Bulakhidas Building, Vithaldas Road, Bombay. On December 27, 1958, the Sub-Inspector of Police accompanied by the Drug Inspector, raided the said building and found large quantities of absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages, gauze and other things. It was found that the appellant was not only storing these goods in large quantities but was actually manufacturing them in Bombay and passing them off as though they were manufactured by a firm of repute in Secundarabad. The samples of the aforesaid articles and lint were sent to the Government Analyst, who reported that out of the samples sent to him only the lint was of standard quality and the other articles were not of standard quality. The appellant was prosecuted before the Presidency Magistrate, 16th Court, Bombay, for an offence under Section 18 of the Act, inter alia, for manufacturing drugs which were not of standard quality. The learned Presidency Magistrate acquitted the appellant on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that the articles were in the possession of the appellant. The High Court on a resurvey of the evidence came to a different conclusion and found that the said articles were not only found in the possession of the appellant but also were manufactured by him and that they were below the standard prescribed. On the finding, it convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under each count. Hence the appeal.

3. Though an attempt was made to argue that the said articles had not been proved to be below the prescribed standard, it was subsequently given up. The only question that was argued is whether the said articles are drugs within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act. The said Section reads :

"drug" includes:

(i) all medicines for internal, or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease in human beings or animals other than medicines and substances exclusively used or prepared for use in accordance with the Ayurvedic or Unani systems of medicine, and

(ii) such substances (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the human body or intended to be used for the destruction of vermins or insects which cause disease in human beings of animals as may be specified from time to time by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

The said definition of "drugs" is comprehensive enough to take in not only medicines but also substances intended to be used for or in the treatment of diseases of human beings or animals This artificial definition introduces a distinction between medicines and substances which are not medicine strictly so-called. The expression "substances", therefore, must be something other than medicines but which are used for treatment. The part of the definition which is material for the present case is "substances intended to be used for or in the treatment" The appropriate meaning of the expression "substances" in the Section is things" It cannot be disputed, and indeed it is not disputed, that absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages and gauze are "substances" within the meaning of the said expression. If so, the next question is whether they are used for or in "treatment". The said articles are sterilized or otherwise treated to make them disinfectant and then used for surgical dressing; they are essential materials for treatment in surgical cases. Besides being aseptic these articles have to possess



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top