Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether D.D.T. compound manufactured, stocked and sold without a licence was a "drug" within the meaning of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, so as to sustain conviction under Section 18(c) read with Section 27.
Analysis: The definition of "drug" under Section 3(b) of the Act was construed in its popular sense, having regard to the object of the legislation to regulate the import, manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs and cosmetics. Although the Public Analyst's report was held not to be reliable because it did not mention the protocol test, the accused admitted that the product sold as D.D.T. compound contained D.D.T. The Court held that a substance sold as D.D.T. compound could not, in common understanding, escape the character of a drug merely because it was labelled "not for medical use" or was intended for control of pests rather than for medicine.
Conclusion: The D.D.T. compound was a drug within the meaning of the Act, and the conviction and sentence under Section 18(c) read with Section 27 were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: In construing a welfare statute regulating drugs, the term "drug" is to be understood in its popular sense, and a substance admitted to contain D.D.T. and sold as D.D.T. compound may constitute a drug notwithstanding a label disclaiming medical use.