In a judgment dated August 2, 2022, the court quashed the criminal case against a registered medical practitioner, a psychiatrist, accused of violating Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The case was based on allegations that the psychiatrist supplied medicines to a patient without a license. The court held that the practitioner’s actions fell under the exemptions provided in Rule 123 of the Drugs Rules, 1945, and Schedule K, Clause 5, which allow registered medical practitioners to supply drugs to their patients.

Background:

A criminal case was filed against a psychiatrist under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, alleging the sale of medicines without a license. The complaint was based on a sting operation where a dummy patient was sent to the clinic, and the practitioner supplied prescribed medicines after examination.

Applicant’s Defense:

The psychiatrist argued that as a registered medical practitioner, he was exempt under Rule 123 of the Drugs Rules, 1945, and Schedule K, Clause 5 of the Act. He claimed that the medicines were duly accounted for, were of standard quality, and were provided to his own patients as allowed by law.

State’s Opposition:

The State argued that the practitioner was not authorized to maintain and sell stock of medicines without a license. They contended that the exemption under Rule 123 did not apply and that the practitioner was required to maintain proper records.

Court’s Observations:

The court noted that there was no evidence of illegal sales or that the psychiatrist was running a pharmacy without a license. It was also observed that the entire stock of medicines was duly accounted for and that the complaint lacked sufficient grounds for prosecution.

Exemption under Rule 123 and Schedule K:

The court emphasized that Rule 123 and Schedule K, Clause 5, specifically exempt registered medical practitioners from the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act when supplying drugs to their patients. The psychiatrist’s actions were found to fall within this exemption.

Issue with Process Issuance:

The court criticized the lower court for issuing process against the psychiatrist without proper reasoning, highlighting the need for judicial application of mind in criminal prosecutions.

Judgment:

The court quashed the criminal case, stating that the prosecution was not sustainable. The application was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.