Stocking Allopathic Drugs in Clinic Without License Presumed 'For Sale,' Conviction Under S.27(b)(ii) Drugs & Cosmetics Act Upheld: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-14

HP High Court Upholds Conviction for Unlicensed Stocking of Allopathic Drugs, Says 'For Sale' Inference Justified

Shimla, HP - The Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant judgment, upholding the conviction of an individual found stocking allopathic medicines in his clinic without a valid license. The court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla , ruled that when a substantial quantity of drugs is found displayed in a clinical setting, an inference that they were "stocked for sale" is legally justified, thereby affirming the conviction under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The decision dismisses the revision petition filed by Sanjay K. Maanav, bringing to a close a legal battle that has spanned over two decades.

Case Background

The case dates back to June 15, 2001, when Drugs Inspector Navneet Marwaha inspected the premises of M/s Maanav Health Clinic in Macleodganj. The petitioner, Sanjay K. Maanav, was found present with a variety of allopathic drugs displayed for sale. When asked to produce a drug license or a certificate from a registered medical practitioner, Maanav could only furnish photocopies of certificates in Electropathy/Electro-Homoeopathy.

Subsequent verification revealed that these certificates were from unrecognized institutions, and Maanav was not authorized to practice any system of medicine in the state. Consequently, the drugs were seized, and a complaint was filed against him.

Both the Trial Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra) in 2007 and the Appellate Court (Sessions Judge, Kangra) in 2012 found Maanav guilty, concluding that the presence of a large stock of medicines in his clinic was sufficient to infer they were intended for sale. He was sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.

Key Arguments in the High Court

The petitioner's counsel, led by Senior Advocate Mr. N.K. Thakur, challenged the lower courts' verdicts on a crucial legal point.

• Petitioner's Stance: The primary argument was that the prosecution failed to prove that the drugs were actually "for sale," which is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 27(b)(ii). The defence heavily relied on the 1979 Supreme Court judgment in Mohammad Shabir vs. State of Maharashtra , where it was held that mere possession of drugs was not sufficient for conviction. As an alternative, a plea was made for a reduced sentence, citing the 24-year-long ordeal of litigation.

• State's Stance: The Additional Advocate General, Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, countered that displaying a huge quantity of allopathic drugs on a clinic's rack inherently implies they are for sale. He argued that the accused, lacking any valid license, was endangering public health, and no leniency should be shown.

High Court's Legal Reasoning and Precedents

Justice Rakesh Kainthla began by outlining the limited scope of the court's revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that it cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court unless there is a "patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law."

The court then addressed the central legal question: can stocking drugs in a clinic be presumed to be "for sale"?

The judgment distinguished the petitioner's reliance on the Mohammad Shabir case by highlighting subsequent legal developments and judicial interpretations.

"Karnataka High Court noticed in State of Karnataka v. Kannika Stores...that Section 18(a) was amended in the year 1982, and offer for sale was prohibited under the Act; therefore, keeping the medicines in the racks of the shop amounted to an offer for sale and was prohibited."

The court cited a chain of judgments from the High Courts of Delhi, Punjab & Haryana, and Andhra Pradesh, which have consistently held that a common-sense inference must be drawn from the circumstances.

"Delhi High Court held in State v. Puran Lal Ahuja...that where a huge quantity was recovered from the shop of the accused, an inference can be drawn that it was meant for sale...Such a large quantity of drugs leaves no doubt that the stock had been kept for sale."

Applying these principles, Justice Kainthla concluded that the lower courts were correct in their findings. The act of keeping allopathic drugs on a rack inside a "Health Clinic" was a clear violation.

Final Decision and Sentence

The High Court found no infirmity in the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the revision petition. On the matter of sentencing, the court rejected the plea for reduction, underscoring the serious public health implications of the crime.

"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 conviction and the sentence of one-month imprisonment and a ₹5,000 fine were upheld, reaffirming the judiciary's strict stance against unlicensed medical practices that jeopardize public safety.