Clinic: SC of India Modifies Imprisonment Sentence to Fine for Doctor in Drug Law Violation Case

Legal Proceedings:

Trial Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate):

Convicted Palani under:

Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Section 18(A) read with Section 28 of the same Act.

Sentenced to:

Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 for the first offense.

Six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000 for the second offense.

Summary of the Judgement

Appellant: Palani

Respondent: Tamil Nadu State

Initial Incident: On October 13, 2015, officials inspected Palani's clinic and found 29 types of allopathic medicines without the proper license for sale.

Palani failed to provide the source of these medicines.

Legal Proceedings:

Trial Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate):

Convicted Palani under:

Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 for having ∙stocked drugs for sale and sold the drugs without having a valid drug license, which is punishable under section 27(b)(ii) of the said Act”.

Section 18(A) read with Section 28 of the same Act.

Sentenced to:

Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 for the first offense.

Six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000 for the second offense.

Imposed a cost of Rs. 2,500 for newspaper publication under Section 35 of the Act.

Lower Appellate Court (Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur):

Addressed whether the drugs recovered were meant for sale/distribution.

Found no evidence supporting the sale/distribution of the drugs.

Set aside the conviction under Section 18(c) but upheld the conviction under Section 18(A).

High Court of Judicature at Madras:

Dismissed the revision case, stating no perversity or infirmity in the lower court’s order.

Supreme Court Judgement:

Issue: Whether the sentence of imprisonment for non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer is justified.

Arguments:

Palani's counsel argued that being a doctor, he had no ill intent and requested modification of the imprisonment to a fine.

Court's Observations:

Recognized Palani as a doctor. Noted that the quantity of medicines recovered was small and did not endanger public interest.

Considering the small quantity of medicines, most of whichare in the category of lotions and ointments,

 it cannot be said byany stretch of imagination that such medicines could be ‘stocked’for sale and would come in the category of stocking of medicines for the purpose of sale. 

 When small quantity of medicine has been found in the premises of a registered medical practitioner, it would not amount to selling their medicines across the counterin an open shop. In fact, this is not even the 

allegation against the Appellant. Undoubtedly, the provisions of Section 18 and 27are 

relevant provisions under the law, which have a social purpose, which is to protect ordinary citizens

 from being exploited inter alia, by unethical medical practitioners, and forthis reason the punishment under

 Section 27 can extend up to 5years under the law, and has a minimum punishment of 3 years.

But given the facts and  circumstances of the case an considering that the Appellant considering that the Appellant is a registered medicapractitioner,  along with the fact that the  quantity of medicines which have been seized is extremely small, a quantity which can be easily found in the house or a consultation room of a doctor,in our considered view no offence is made out in the presentcase. In fact, an exception has been  created under Schedule ‘K’ read with Rule 123 to the rules, the appellant ought to have beengiven the benefit of these 

provisions and such a registeredmedical practitioner should not have been  allowed to face a trial where in all likelihood the prosecution would have failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.  

The learned single judge while dismissing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C of the appellant has relied upon a decision of this Court:

Referenced prior judgement (S. Athilakshmi v. State Rep. by The Drug Inspector) where a doctor was acquitted under similar circumstances.

Emphasized that imprisonment would be unjustified without proven intent to sell/distribute.

Conclusion:

Decision: The Supreme Court modified the impugned judgement:

Set aside the sentence of imprisonment.

Imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 on Palani.

The sanctioning authority had not examined at all whether a practising doctor could be prosecuted under the facts of the case, considering the small quantity of the drugs and the exception created in favour of medical practitioner under Rule 123, read with the Schedule “K”.  All these factors ought to have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Under these circumstances we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court and quash

Final Order: Appeal allowed to the extent of modifying the sentence from imprisonment to a fine. Exemption from surrendering granted on January 7, 2022, is made absolute. Pending applications disposed of

Thanks for visiting!!