Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 6th September 2021 in CRLRC No.413 of 2019, which refused interference with the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur dated 16th April 2019. The lower Appellate Court had modified the Trial Court's order by setting aside the appellant's conviction under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, while confirming the conviction and sentence under Section 18A read with Section 28 of the Act. The facts involved an inspection on 13th October 2015 of a clinic run by the appellant, where 29 types of allopathic medicines were found without proper license for sale, and the appellant failed to disclose the source of procurement. The Trial Court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to imprisonment and fines, but the lower Appellate Court acquitted him under Section 18(c) due to lack of evidence proving possession for sale/distribution, confirming only the conviction under Section 18A for non-disclosure of the manufacturer's name. The High Court dismissed a revision petition, noting the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. In the Supreme Court, the appellant, a doctor, did not seriously challenge the conviction but sought modification of the six-month imprisonment sentence to a fine, arguing lack of ill intention. The court considered sentencing principles from precedent, emphasizing factors like the offender's profile. It noted the small quantity of medicines and that the intent to sell under Section 18(c) was unproven. The court held that imposing imprisonment was unjustified, modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, while allowing the appeal to that extent and making absolute the exemption from surrendering.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Modification of Sentence - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Sections 18A, 28 - Appellant, a doctor, convicted for non-disclosure of manufacturer's name under Section 18A read with Section 28 - Court considered appellant's profession, small quantity of medicines, and lack of intent to sell - Held that imposing imprisonment was unjustified; sentence modified to fine of Rs. 1,00,000 (Paras 7-13). B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Proof of Possession for Sale - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 18(c) - Lower Appellate Court set aside conviction under Section 18(c) as prosecution failed to prove drugs were for sale/distribution - No patients or bills examined; only admission of possession - Held that offence under Section 18(c) not proven (Paras 3.5-3.7). C) Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - High Court dismissed revision as scope limited to perversity or infirmity; no such finding - Revision not akin to appellate court (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentence of imprisonment under Section 18A read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, should be modified to a fine considering the appellant's status as a doctor and the small quantity of medicines involved
Final Decision
Appeal allowed to the extent of modifying the sentence; imprisonment set aside and fine of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed; exemption from surrendering made absolute
Law Points
- Sentencing principles under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
- 1940
- scope of revisional jurisdiction
- proof of possession for sale/distribution
- modification of sentence based on offender's profile and lack of mens rea
