Alcoholic Ayurvedic Medicine? High Court Says Proceeding Under Drugs & Cosmetics Act Doesn't Preclude Action Under Gujarat Prohibition Act
The Gujarat High Court has affirmed charges invoked against a pharmaceutical firm owner for allegedly violating State's prohibition law by selling intoxicating substances as ayurvedic medicine, clarifying that action under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act does not exempt an individual from prosecution if a case is made out under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.Bench of Justice Hasmukh D....
The Gujarat High Court has affirmed charges invoked against a pharmaceutical firm owner for allegedly violating State's prohibition law by selling intoxicating substances as ayurvedic medicine, clarifying that action under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act does not exempt an individual from prosecution if a case is made out under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.
Bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar pointed that as per FSL report, level of alcohol in the medicine sold by the petitioner's firm was found to be more than 12%, the permissible limit under the Prohibition Act. It thus observed,
"...the said proceeding [under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act] cannot be equated at par with the proceeding under the Gujarat Prohibition Act...The object of Drugs and Cosmetics Act is to control manufacture and distribution of drugs...As special provision under Section 67A is inserted in the Gujarat Prohibition Act and if percentage of alcohol level is found in the muddamal samples to be more than 12%, then prima facie, offence is made out.”
The Petitioner firm was booked for selling intoxicating drugs in the guise of ayurvedic medicine and falsely fixing the stickers below permissible limit. Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 67(A), 65(e), and 81 of the Prohibition Act, naming the petitioner as an accused.
The Court emphasized that proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act serve the limited purpose of assessing the standard of samples, as licenses for manufacturing such products are issued by the Department. Whereas the Gujarat Prohibition Act operates in the field to eradicate the menace of intoxicant.
In the case at hand, the Court noted that the articles in question were not solely ayurvedic medicine; rather, they included spirituous articles. “Further, perusing the provisions of section 24A and 59A of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, section 24A provides the medicinal preparation unfit for being used as an intoxicating liquor falling within the ambit of section 29A of the Gujarat Prohibition Act,” it said.
The Court further noted that when read in conjunction with section 59A, section 24A implies that medicinal preparations are subject to "description" and "limitation," meaning that no more alcohol should be used in their manufacture than necessary for extraction, solution of contained elements, and preservation. "If alcohol in excess of the quantity prescribed by section 59A is found in the article then the offence is made out, whether it is fit or unfit to be used as intoxicating liquor. Sometimes, it happens that abnormal consumption of such drug or goods leads to so many complication and adversely affect the public health," the Court added.
Court also said that the State has a duty to raise living standard and public health and to eradicate the consumption of liquor and intoxicating drugs.
“Gujarat is a dry State and pursuant to Article 47 of the Constitution of India, the directive principles of the State policy, it is the duty of the State to raise the standard of living and improve the public health and for the said purpose, prohibition of such intoxicating drugs being made compulsory in the Gujarat State. The State is committed to the ideas and principles of Father of Nation Shri Mahatma Gandhji and State also firmly intends to eradicate the menace of consuming liquor or intoxicating drugs to overhaul the law relating to intoxicating drugs and total prohibition in the State and for that amendments also being made in the Gujarat Prohibition Act.”
“However, it is needless to say that, the observations made in the order are tentative in nature and the learned Magistrate shall decide the criminal case on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in the present order,” the Court emphasized while dismissing the quashing petition.
Case Title : Amod Anil Bhave Versus State Of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 46