'Medicines Weren't For Sale' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Sentence Of Imprisonment Imposed On Doctor For Not Disclosing Manufacturer, Imposes Fine

The Supreme Court recently set aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed on a doctor for the offence under Section 18(A) read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for not disclosing the name of the manufacturer/persons from whom the medicines in his clinic were procured.

While maintaining the conviction, the Court converted the sentence of imprisonment of 6 months into a sentence of a fine of Rs one lakh. Considering that the doctor possessed only small quantities of medicine not meant for distribution/sale purposes, the Court held that the sentence of imprisonment would be unjustified.

The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol.

Background facts 
During an inspection by the drug inspector, it came to know that the doctor running a medical clinic possessed 29 types of allopathic medicines meant for distribution without the proper paperwork (license) for sale. Moreover, upon being questioned as to the source of procurement of these medicines, details remained unfurnished.

However, according to the appellant doctor, the medicines possessed by him in the clinic were of small quantity and were not meant for distribution/sale purposes.

The Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court sustained the conviction of the appellant doctor under Section 18(A) read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Both these provisions concern the disclosure or non-disclosure respectively of the name of the manufacturer.

Section 18(A) stipulates a requirement for every person who is not a manufacturer or agent of distribution to disclose the name of the person from whom he has acquired such drug or cosmetic. Section 28 imposes a punishment for violation of the aforesaid requirement to the tune of imprisonment up to a year or with a fine not less than Rs. 20,000/-, or with both.

In the present case, the punishment imposed is six months simple imprisonment with the minimum statutory fine.

It is against the said conviction that the appellant doctor preferred a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.

At the outset, the Supreme Court after finding that the 29 kinds of medicines found in the clinic of the appellant doctor were of small quantity, held that there was no impending danger to the public interest due to non-disclosure of the name of the medicine manufacturer.

“non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer/person from whom the said medicines were acquired, cannot be said to be endangering public interest (which obviously, is the primary object of the prohibition in law) by allowing the circulation of such substances unauthorizedly”, the Judgment authored by Justice Karol observed.

The court has referred to its earlier decision passed in the case of S. Athilakshmi v. State Rep. by The Drug Inspector to arrive at the above findings, where the court had acquitted a doctor of stocking a small amount of drug as the same was not slated to be equal to selling medicines across the counter in a shop.

“We are of the considered view that imposing a sentence of imprisonment would be unjustified, particularly when the intent to sell/distribute under Section 18(c) of the Act has been held unproven. Therefore, we find it fit to modify the impugned judgment, set aside the sentence of imprisonment as awarded, and instead thereof, impose a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Appellant.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the sentence of imprisonment was set aside, and instead a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant doctor.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. T. Hari Hara Sudhan, Adv. Ms. Shalini Mishra, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Joseph Aristotle, Sr.Adv. Mr. D. Kumanan,AOR Ms. Deepa S.,Adv.

Case Details: PALANI vs. THE TAMIL NADU STATE, Criminal Appeal No. 887 / 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 121

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment