Stocking Allopathic Drugs in a Clinic Without a License Implies Intent to Sell: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction Under Drugs & Cosmetics Act - 2025-09-02

Unlicensed Stocking of Allopathic Drugs in Clinic Amounts to ‘Offer for Sale,’ HP High Court Upholds Conviction

Shimla, Himachal Pradesh – The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has upheld the conviction of a clinic owner found stocking allopathic medicines without a valid license. Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that storing a substantial quantity of drugs on display racks in a clinic creates an irresistible presumption that they are meant for sale, thus attracting penalties under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Sanjay K. Maanav, who challenged the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court, Kangra, which had sentenced him to one month's imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.

Case Background

The case dates back to June 15, 2001, when a Drugs Inspector inspected M/s Maanav Health Clinic in Macleodganj. The inspector, Navneet Marwaha, found the petitioner, Sanjay K. Maanav, present at the clinic with a variety of allopathic drugs displayed on racks. When asked to produce a drug license or a certificate from a registered medical practitioner, Maanav could only provide unrecognized certificates in electropathy/electro-homoeopathy.

Consequently, the drugs were seized, and after obtaining prosecution sanction, a complaint was filed. The Trial Court convicted Maanav under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, a decision that was later confirmed by the Sessions Court in an appeal. Maanav then moved the High Court with a revision petition.

Arguments Before the High Court

The petitioner’s counsel primarily argued that the prosecution had failed to prove a crucial ingredient of the offence: that the drugs were actually meant for sale . Relying on the 1979 Supreme Court judgment in Mohammad Shabir vs. State of Maharashtra , it was contended that mere possession of drugs does not constitute an offence under the Act. Furthermore, considering the 24-year-long pendency of the case, a reduction in sentence was pleaded in the alternative.

The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, countered that displaying a large quantity of allopathic drugs on clinic racks was sufficient to infer an intent to sell. It was argued that the accused was endangering public health without any valid qualification or license, and thus deserved no sympathy.

Court’s Analysis and Legal Precedents

Justice Kainthla first delineated the narrow scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that it cannot act as an appellate court to re-appreciate evidence unless there is a "patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law."

The court then addressed the central legal question of whether "stocking for sale" could be inferred from the circumstances. It distinguished the Mohammad Shabir case, noting that the Drugs & Cosmetics Act was amended in 1982, subsequent to that judgment. The amendment explicitly made "offering for sale" a prohibited act.

The judgment cited several High Court rulings to support its conclusion: * State of Karnataka v. Kannika Stores (1992): The Karnataka High Court held that keeping drugs on shop racks amounted to an "offer for sale" following the 1982 amendment. * State v. Puran Lal Ahuja (1985): The Delhi High Court ruled that recovery of a large quantity of drugs from a shop makes it "impossible to contend" that they were not meant for sale. * Ch. Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P. (2010): The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that when an unqualified practitioner is found with a huge stock of drugs in his clinic, a presumption can be drawn under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that they are for sale.

"In the present case, the drugs were found on the rack inside the clinic and learned Trial Court had rightly held that this violated Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act," the Court observed in its judgment.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court found no infirmity in the findings of the lower courts. It concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the testimony of the Drugs Inspector and other officials, was consistent and reliable.

Rejecting the plea for a reduced sentence despite the long delay, the Court underscored the seriousness of the offence.

"The possession of these drugs adversely affected public health and should be seriously viewed... The Court has to impose a deterrent sentence to dissuade people from playing with the lives of others by stocking the allopathic drugs for sale. Therefore, there is no justification for the reduction of the sentence," the bench stated firmly.

Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed the revision and upheld the conviction and sentence, directing that the records be sent back to the lower court for execution of the sentence.