Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(G.N. Vaidya J.)
PRABHUDAS KALYANJI (Accused) - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHAHASHTRA - Respondent
Advocates appeared
For appellant – N.V. Adhia
For State - V.T. Gambhirwala, Asst. Govt. Pleader
DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT, 1940 - SECTION 3(B) - INTERPRETATION - D.D.T. COMPOUND - WHETHER A DRUG - POPULAR MEANING OF THE WORD DRUG - COURT'S INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 18(c) read with section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for manufacturing, stocking, and selling D.D.T. compound without a license. The appellant contended that the D.D.T. compound was not a drug as it was not intended for medicinal use and the report of the Public Analyst did not mention the protocol test.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the D.D.T. compound was a drug within the meaning of the Act. The court relied on the popular meaning of the word drug and the fact that the appellant himself admitted that the substance contained D.D.T., a well-known drug.
Issues: Whether the D.D.T. compound was a drug within the meaning of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the D.D.T. compound was a drug based on the following reasons: * The popular meaning of the word drug includes substances intended to be used for the destruction of vermin or insects that cause disease in human beings or animals. * The appellant himself admitted that the substance he sold contained D.D.T., a well-known drug. * The fact that the substance was not notified by the Government of India or did not contain the chemical ingredients found by the Public Analyst was irrelevant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant.
2. The accused did not dispute that at the relevant time he was manufacturing, stocking and selling at 121, Parel Tank Road, Parel, Bombay 12, as proprietor of M/s. Hill Side Products, D. D. T. compound, but he denied that the substance which he was manufacturing of selling was intended to be used for the destruction of vermin or insects which caused disease in human beings or animals as mentioned in a notification of the Government of India under section 3 (b) (ii). He relied on a label which was u8eu on his product which he produced. On one side of the laLel there is a picture of a theatre and it is written:
"Theatre Brand
D D T Co.
Technical D D T cum Malathion.
Superior Quality.
Hill-side Products, Bombay."
On another side of the label it is written:
"Not for medical use.
Theatre Brand D. D. T. is to be used with a sprayer for the control of horticultural and household pests other than those that cause disease in human beings or animals.
Caution:-Store well away from children, animals, food stuffs and animal feed. Wash hands after use.
Do not pour or spill on open fire.
HILL-SIDE PRODUCTS.
Parel Tank Road, Bombay-12."
3. The accused did not dispute that D. D. T. was actually used in this product. His only contention, therefore, was that the product was not intended to be used a" medicine and, therefore, it was not a drug. He also contended that the report of the Public Analyst, which was relied on by the complainant who was a Drug Inspector, did not mention the protocol test and hence the report was useless a" evidence.
4. The learned Magistrate was of the view that notwithstanding the contents of the label, the substance manufactured by the accused was a drug. It is argued before me that the finding of the learned Magistrate was not right firstly because the report of the Public Analyst did not mention the protocol test and secondly because the substance manufactured, stocked and sold by the accused was not fur medicinal use and the learned Magistrate erred in relying on the report and in holding in spite of what was mentioned in the label that the D. D. T. compound sold by the accused was a drug.
5. The Magistrate convicted the accused under section l~ (0) read with section 27 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or in default to suffer further imprisonment for 15 days. In my judgment, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant must be confirmed although not for the reasons stated by the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate was not right in relying on the report of the Public Analyst which did not mention the protocol test. Nevertheless, as the accused himself has admitted that the substance which he sold contained D.D.T. and it was sold as D. D. T. Compound, it will be against common sense to hold that it was not a drug. It is a well-established canon of construction that in dealing with matters relating to the general public, statutes are presumed to use words in their popular sense; uti loquitur vulgus. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act is dealing with matter" relating to the general public. Its object is to regulate the import, manufacture, distribution and "ale of drugs and cosmetics. There is no exhaustive definition of drug in the Act. Section:; (b) is only an inclusive definition which includes certain things which perhaps according to popular usage, could not be included in the popular meaning of the word drug or in respect of which there might be some doubt as to whether they would be Considered as drugs according to the popular mea
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
