Broad meaning of drug under the Drugs Act includes essential surgical materials used in treatment and excludes sentence relief.

The definition of "drug" in section 3(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940 was construed broadly to cover not only medicines but also substances intended for use in the treatment of disease. Absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages and gauze were treated as essential surgical aids, sterilized or otherwise prepared for treatment, and therefore fell within the statutory definition. The sentence challenge also failed because the offence involved manufacture and passing off of spurious articles in large quantities, and the three-month rigorous imprisonment was regarded as lenient; no basis for appellate interference was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages and gauze are "drugs" within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940, as amended. (ii) Whether there was any ground to interfere with the sentence imposed on the appellant.

Issue (i): Whether absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages and gauze are "drugs" within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940, as amended.

Analysis: The definition of "drug" in section 3(b) is wide and includes not only medicines but also substances intended to be used for or in the treatment of disease. The expression "substances" was construed as covering things other than medicines that are used in treatment. Absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages and gauze are essential materials in surgical treatment and are sterilized or otherwise treated for that purpose. The statutory object of preventing substandard drugs and maintaining standards of medical treatment would be defeated if such necessary aids to treatment were excluded. The articles concerned were therefore within the statutory definition.

Conclusion: The articles were held to be substances used for or in treatment and therefore fell within section 3(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940.

Issue (ii): Whether there was any ground to interfere with the sentence imposed on the appellant.

Analysis: The offence involved manufacture and passing off of large quantities of spurious articles as goods of a repute firm. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months was treated as lenient in the circumstances, and no sufficient reason was shown for appellate interference.

Conclusion: No interference with the sentence was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were sustained, and the appeal did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A broad statutory definition of "drug" extends to non-medicinal substances that are essential aids in treatment and are intended for use in the treatment of disease.

---