Drugs Act prosecution upheld where inspector-filed complaint, continuing rules, and broad statutory definition supported conviction.

A prosecution under the Drugs Act was valid where the complaint was filed by the Inspector required by the statute, so the objection to jurisdiction failed. The existing Bombay Drugs Rules, 1946 continued in force under the General Clauses Act after amendment of the parent provision, so the absence of fresh Central rules did not defeat the licensing regime or the conviction for manufacturing without a licence. On the evidence, the preparations contained allopathic medicines and fell within the Act's inclusive definition of "drugs," and the charge was sufficiently clear. The conviction under the Act was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the prosecution was validly instituted by an Inspector under the Drugs Act; (ii) whether the appellant could be convicted for manufacturing drugs without a licence when the statutory rules had been amended and fresh rules were not yet framed; (iii) whether the goods manufactured were "drugs" within the meaning of the Act; and (iv) whether the charge was vague.

Issue (i): whether the prosecution was validly instituted by an Inspector under the Drugs Act

Analysis: A complaint signed and filed by the Drugs Inspector was on the record, and the accompanying police charge-sheet was treated as superfluous. Section 32 of the Drugs Act required prosecutions under Chapter IV to be instituted only by an Inspector. Since the Inspector had in fact filed the complaint, the proceeding was not without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The prosecution was validly instituted by an Inspector and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant could be convicted for manufacturing drugs without a licence when the statutory rules had been amended and fresh rules were not yet framed

Analysis: The contention rested on the assertion that the Bombay rules stood repealed when Section 33(1) was amended and that, until fresh Central rules were framed, there was no competent licensing authority. The Court applied Section 24 of the General Clauses Act to hold that rules made under the earlier regime continued in force, so far as they were consistent with the re-enacted provision, until superseded. The Bombay Drugs Rules, 1946, therefore remained operative and provided a lawful licensing framework.

Conclusion: The absence of freshly framed Central rules did not invalidate the licensing regime and the conviction could stand.

Issue (iii): whether the goods manufactured were "drugs" within the meaning of the Act

Analysis: The evidence showed that the formula contained allopathic medicines and substances. Section 3(b) of the Drugs Act used an inclusive definition covering medicines for internal or external use and substances intended for treatment, mitigation, or prevention of disease, except those exclusively used or prepared according to the Ayurvedic or Unani systems. On the evidence, the preparations were not shown to fall within that ion.

Conclusion: Vivigan Ointment and the related preparation were drugs within the meaning of the Act.

Issue (iv): whether the charge was vague

Analysis: The record disclosed no real uncertainty in the accusation or prejudice caused to the appellant. The charge sufficiently disclosed the acts complained of and the statutory provisions alleged to have been contravened.

Conclusion: The charge was not vague.

Final Conclusion: The conviction under Section 18(c) read with Section 27 of the Drugs Act was sustained and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a prosecution is supported by a complaint filed by the Inspector required by the statute, the pre-existing rules continue under the General Clauses Act after re-enactment unless inconsistent or superseded, and an inclusive statutory definition must be applied according to the evidence, excluding only the express carve-out.

---