TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms broad drug definition under Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, emphasizing public health protection</h1> <h3>ZAFFAR MOHAMMAD @ Z.M. SARKAR Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL</h3> ZAFFAR MOHAMMAD @ Z.M. SARKAR Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 1976 AIR 171, 1976 (2) SCR 782, 1976 (1) SCC 428 Issues:1. Interpretation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (objectionable Advertisements) Act.2. Whether the advertisement published by the appellant falls under the definition of 'drug' as per the Act.3. Analysis of the advertisement content and its compliance with the Act.4. Consideration of the implications of the advertisement on public health and the intention behind the Act.Detailed Analysis:1. The Supreme Court analyzed the Drugs and Magic Remedies (objectionable Advertisements) Act, focusing on Section 3, which prohibits advertisements related to drugs for specific purposes. The Act also outlines penalties for contravening its provisions under Section 7.2. The key contention was whether the advertisement published by the appellant, a homeopathic practitioner, referred to a 'drug' as defined in the Act. The appellant argued that the advertisement did not mention any drug, thus not falling under the Act's purview.3. The Court examined the advertisement's language, which claimed to treat various ailments using 'new methods, new machines of science, and electric treatment.' The Court interpreted the term 'drug' broadly as per the Act's definition, which includes substances intended for the diagnosis, cure, or treatment of diseases in humans. The Court held that the machines and treatments advertised by the appellant could be considered as articles intended to influence the body's organic functions, thus falling within the Act's definition of a drug.4. Considering the Act's objective to prevent misleading advertisements that could harm public health by leading individuals to unqualified practitioners, the Court emphasized the importance of bringing such advertisements within the Act's scope. The Court noted that even if the appellant was not a quack, the advertisement's claims could mislead the ignorant and unwary. Therefore, the Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming the appellant's conviction under the Act.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the High Court's decision based on the interpretation of the advertisement's content and its alignment with the provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (objectionable Advertisements) Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
