1962 (9) TMI 34 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of Drugs Act: Appellant's Conviction Upheld for Possessing Substandard Medical Supplies

Chimanlal Jagjivandas Sheth Versus State of Maharashtra

The Court analyzed the construction of s.3(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940, in an appeal case where the appellant was convicted for possessing medical supplies ... Whether the said articles, absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages, gauze and other things are drugs within the meaning of s. 3(b) of the Act? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As agreeing with the High. Court, that the said articles are substances used for or in the 'treatment' within the meaning of s. 3(b) of the Act. As this was a gross case where large quantities of spurious drugs had been manufactured by the appellant and passed off as goods manufactured by a firm of repute. The appellant was guilty of an anti-social act of a very serious nature. Thus the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for three months was more lenient than severe. There is no case for interference with the sentences. Issues:- Construction of s.3(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940, as amended by the Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1955.- Whether the articles found in possession of the appellant are considered drugs under the Act.- Interpretation of the definition of 'drug' under s. 3(b) of the Act.- Determining if the articles found are substances used for or in the treatment within the meaning of the Act.- Validity of the sentences imposed on the appellant.Construction of s.3(b) of the Drugs Act:The judgment pertains to an appeal against the High Court's decision regarding the construction of s.3(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940. The appellant was found manufacturing and storing medical supplies not meeting the prescribed standards. The High Court concluded that the appellant was in possession of these articles and convicted him under the Act. The primary issue argued was whether the articles in question fall under the definition of 'drug' as per s.3(b) of the Act. The definition of 'drug' under the Act includes medicines and substances used for treatment. The Court analyzed the definition in detail, emphasizing that substances like absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages, and gauze are integral to medical treatment and thus qualify as drugs under the Act.Interpretation of the definition of 'drug' under s. 3(b):The Court delved into the interpretation of the term 'substances' within the definition of 'drug.' It highlighted that these substances, such as medical supplies like gauze, are essential for surgical procedures and medical treatment. The Court emphasized that the Act aims to maintain high standards in medical treatment by preventing substandard drugs. It concluded that the articles in question, being necessary aids for treating surgical cases, fall within the ambit of the Act's definition of 'drug.'Validity of the sentences imposed on the appellant:The appellant sought a reduction in the sentences imposed, but the Court upheld the rigorous imprisonment and fines, considering the severity of the offense. The Court noted the seriousness of passing off spurious drugs and upheld the original sentences, deeming them appropriate for the anti-social act committed by the appellant. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentences imposed by the High Court.In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the construction of s.3(b) of the Drugs Act, emphasizing the inclusion of essential medical supplies as drugs under the Act. It upholds the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant for manufacturing substandard medical supplies and passing them off as genuine products, highlighting the gravity of the offense committed.