Engaging in drug distribution without a valid license constitutes a criminal offense under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

1. This petition has arisen out of the complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector. Delhi Administration, under S.27(a) read with S.18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereafter called "the Act").

2. The Drugs Inspector stated in the complaint that he had recovered Items 1 to 23 mentioned in the recovery memo which were drugs within the meaning of S.3(b) of the Act and that had been on the 23rd of February, 1972. The Drugs were recovered from the premises of the petitioner. Certain bills and cash - memos were also recovered which disclosed the sources from which the drugs had been purchased by the petitioner. A recovery memo was prepared in respect thereof. The Drugs Inspector made inquiries from the firms from which the drugs had been purchased by the petitioner. In paragraph 6 the complaint alleged : -
"That the accused had no licence to sell, stock and exhibit for sale and distribute drugs at his premises mentioned above and that he is not a Registered Medical Practitioner within the meaning of R.2(ee) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945."
In paragraph 7 of the complaint it was stated that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of S.18(c) of the Act and had thus incurred liability to punishment under S.27 of the same Act.

3. The trial Court after taking cognizance of the complaint issued process in consequence whereof the accused appeared on the 11th of September, 1972, and was ordered to be released on furnishing a bail - bond in the sum of Rupees 3,000/- with one surety. After the prosecution closed it evidence the accused was examined under S.342 of the Old Code of Criminal Procedure which was then in vogue. I have perused that statement. The accused i.e., the petitioner before me was very forthright and truthful in answering the questions put to him. He admitted that the drugs mentioned in the question put to him in that respect had been recovered from his premises and that he was practising as a private medical practitioner. He also admitted that he did not have any licence either to keep the drugs or to practise as a private medical practitioner. When he was asked why the case had been bought against him, he again made a significantly truthful statement. He stated : -
"The case has been made by the Department as I was dealing with the drugs without licence."
He was asked whether he had anything else to say. In reply to that question the accused - petitioner stated that he was a member of the Private Medical Practitioners Association of India (Registered) and that some of the State Governments had recognized persons who had qualifications similar to his to practise as registered medical practitioners, but that had been done in some of the States and in other States negotiations were going on for obtaining recognizance of persons of the petitioner's qualifications to practise as medical practitioners. He further sated that negotiations were going on with the Central Government and the Delhi Administration. That statement he made on the 22nd of December, 1973. Thereafter an application was made on behalf of the petitioner for examining certain witnesses dawn from various States. The order which disposed of the said application mentions that the accused wanted to examine witnesses which were to come from Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. He wanted to examine the Joint Secretaries and Secretaries of Governments of those States. The petitioner wanted to prove that in these States persons of his qualifications had been given the right to practise as medical practitioners. By his order dated the 14th of March, 1974, the trial Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the proof which he petitioner sought to render was irrelevant to the offence for which he was being tried. Th