Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- Every legislation is a social document and judicial construction seeks to decipher the statutory mission, *(1) language permitting taking the cue from the rule in Heydon s case of suppressing the evil and advancing the remedy. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Act, for short) is a life-saving statute one of the provisions of which, together with a bunch of rules and forms, falls for interpretation and application to the substantially admitted facts set out concisely in the order granting certificate of fitness to appeal. The Bench projected the factual-legal issue in these words:-

* (1) 3 Co. Ref.7a -Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes12th Edn. , p.40

"It is not in dispute that the petitioners have a wholesale dealers licence to stock drugs at Bombay and have a further licence to distribute the drugs through the motor van throughout the territory of the State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, their motor van started filled with drugs and reached the Vidarbha area. The petitioners booked certain drugs for which they have already a licence to distribute, by lorry to Yeotmal. The idea was that the motor van, which was touring the Vidarbha area, should reach Yeotmal by about the time when the goods were due to arrive and the person in charge of the motor van would collected the drugs so booked from the lorry and distribute them as per instructions given by the firm. But unfortunately the motor van was delayed by about three days and one of the partners of the petitioner-firm who was moving with the van, went ahead of Yeotmal, released the goods from the transport operator and temporarily kept them in the godown of a local drugs dealer. The intention was to load the van with those drugs and distribute the drugs as permitted by the licence.

In the appeal in this Court, these facts have been found as pleaded by the accused persons. However, it is held that the temporary deposit of the goods in the godown of a local drugs dealer amounts to stocking for sale as contemplated by clause (c) of Section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. For the purpose of stocking the drugs, either for sale or for distribution, the accused persons had not licence for the premises at Yeotmal and this act amounted to a breach of the conditions of the licence and, as such, breach of Rule 62, amounting to an offence under Section 27 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The point, whether a temporary deposit of drugs or temporary retention of drugs in a place outside Bombay for which place the petitioners have no licence to stock the goods, amounts to stocking for sale or distribution, is a point of law which appears to us of general importance.

2. The appellant has been concurrently convicted but hopefully challenged S. 18(c) of the Act forbids manufacture for sale, or sell or stock or exhibit for sale, or distribute any drug without licence under this Chapter (Ch. IV), S. 27 (b) is the penal provision for contravention of the provisions of Ch. IV of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. Rule 62 is claimed to have been violated and so may be read here together with the sister rule, i.e. R. 61:

"61. Forms of licences to sell drugs -

(1) A licence to sell stock or exhibit for sale, or distribute drugs other than those specified in Schedules C and C (1) by retail, on restricted licence or by wholesale shall be issued in Form 20, 20-A or 20-B as the case may be:

Provided that a licence in Form 20-A shall be valid for only such drugs as are specified in the licence;

(2) A licence to sell stock or exhibit for sale, or distribute drugs specified in Schedules C and C (1) by retail, on restricted licence or by wholesale shall be issued in Form 21, 21-A or 21-B as the case may be:

Provided that a licence in Form 21-A shall be valid for only such drugs as are specified in the licence.

62. Sale at more than one place - If drugs are sold or stocked for sale at more than one place, separate application shall be made, and a separate licen