Medical practitioner exemption under drugs law protected limited medicine possession and invalidated mechanical prosecution sanction.

Mere possession of small quantities of medicines in a registered medical practitioner's consultation premises does not, by itself, establish stocking drugs for sale under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act where there is no open shop or counter sale. Rule 123 and Schedule K exempt drugs supplied by a registered medical practitioner to her own patient, and that protection applied on the facts. The sanction for prosecution was also infirm because it was granted mechanically, without independent consideration of the relevant materials or the practitioner-specific exemption. The criminal proceedings were therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a registered medical practitioner, found with small quantities of medicines in her consultation premises, could be prosecuted for stocking drugs for sale without a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; (ii) whether the exemption for drugs supplied by a registered medical practitioner under Rule 123 and Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 applied; and (iii) whether the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed for want of application of mind in the sanction order.

Issue (i): whether a registered medical practitioner, found with small quantities of medicines in her consultation premises, could be prosecuted for stocking drugs for sale without a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Analysis: The alleged contravention rested on stocking medicines for sale under Section 18(c), punishable under Section 27(b)(ii). The materials showed only small quantities of lotions and ointments in the premises of a registered dermatologist, not the operation of an open shop or sale across the counter. Possession of medicines in such circumstances did not, by itself, establish stocking for sale, and the essential ingredient of the offence was not made out on the facts.

Conclusion: The prosecution on this footing was not sustainable and was against the Appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the exemption for drugs supplied by a registered medical practitioner under Rule 123 and Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 applied.

Analysis: Rule 123 exempts the drugs specified in Schedule K from the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act, subject to the conditions stated in that Schedule. Entry 5 of Schedule K covers drugs supplied by a registered medical practitioner to her own patient, so long as she is not keeping an open shop, selling across the counter, or otherwise engaged in commercial drug distribution to a degree attracting Chapter IV. On the record, the Appellant was a registered medical practitioner and the prosecution did not show any prohibited open-shop sale; the seized medicines were consistent with the limited professional use contemplated by the exemption.

Conclusion: The Appellant was entitled to the protection of Rule 123 and Schedule K, and the exemption applied in her favour.

Issue (iii): whether the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed for want of application of mind in the sanction order.

Analysis: The sanction for prosecution was granted after considerable delay and disclosed no reference to the relevant materials, no discussion of the doctor-specific exemption, and no explanation for the delay. The sanctioning authority was required to apply an independent mind to the facts and materials before authorising prosecution. The absence of such consideration rendered the sanction mechanical and infirm.

Conclusion: The sanction suffered from non-application of mind and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution was unwarranted on the facts, the statutory exemption protected the Appellant, and the impugned criminal case was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere possession of small quantities of medicines by a registered medical practitioner does not constitute stocking for sale where the statutory exemption under Rule 123 and Schedule K applies, and prosecution cannot be sustained on a mechanical sanction lacking independent application of mind.

---