These 33 items had been kept in the premises for sale without the requisite licence.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 29 1 1975 of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
For these offences the High Court sentenced each of the three appellants to pay a fine of Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 13 9 1974 of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Criminal Appeal No.
1 was found to be sub standard.
For the same offences the High Court further sentenced the third appellant by virtue of section 34 2 of the Act to undergo simple imprisonment for three months on each companynt and to pay a fine of Rs.
The Inspector sent the samples to the Government Analyst and the report received from him showed that the products were number of standard quality.
Pleas.
On September 9, 1970 the Drugs Inspector, Bangalore Division, found that the firm M s. Manoj Drug House was exhibiting for sale stocks of the drugs which the Government Analyst had declared as number of standard quality.
The Inspector seized the stock produced before him but this was found to be short by 57 bottles of Liquid Paraffin I.P. 450 ml.
On July 17, 1970 the Assistant Drug Controller for the State of Mysore who had been appointed as Inspector under section 21 of the Act took samples of Liquid Paraffin P. Batch I, and Formaline I.P. Batch 1 which, as the labels on these drugs showed, had been repacked by M s. Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory, the first appellant in the other case.
On the aforesaid facts the Drugs Inspector filed a companyplaint in the companyrt of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class 4th Court , Bangalore alleging that the appellants before us were guilty of having companymitted offences under sections 18 c , 18 a i and 18A punishable respectively under sections 27 a ii , 27 b and 28 of the Act.
The second appellant is a partner and the third is the manager of the first appellant, a firm called M s. Manoj Drug House.
Of the samples of the drugs seized and sent to the Government Analyst, one sample of Sodium Bromide I. P. Batch No.
The firm possessed valid licence to sell, stock and exhibit for sale drugs.
Samples were taken from the seized drugs which were sent to the Government Analyst and from his report it was found that one of the drugs, Sodium Bromide I.P. Batch No.
The absconding partner of the other firm is also a partner of the first appellant here.
The magistrate before whom the appellants were tried for the aforesaid offences acquitted them the High Court on appeal set aside the order of acquittal as already stated.
2000 on each of the companynts, in default appellants number.
The substantive sentences passed on the third appellant were directed to run companycurrently.
This companystitutes an offence under section 18A which makes the appellants punishable under section 28 of the Act.
500 on each companynt, in default of payment to simple imprisonment for one month for each number payment of fine.
On the facts on record the High Court found a 33 out of the 42 items of drugs seized from the business premises of the first appellant do number figure in the approved list of drugs which forms part of the licence issued to the first appellant.
On these facts a companyplaint was filed in the companyrt of the City Magistrate, Bangalore alleging that the appellants were guilty of an offence under section 18 a i of the Act for having in their stock and exhibiting for sale drugs number of standard quality and further that they were guilty of an offence under section 18 a vi for disposing of the aforesaid quantities of Liquid Paraffin I.P. Batch No.
1 was sub standard.
This companystitutes an offence under section 18 c of the Act for which all the appellants are punishable under section 27 a ii .
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
He therefore issued an order under section 22 1 c of the Act prohibiting the sale of the said drugs for a certain period which was extended from time to time.
120 of 1975.
AND Writ Petition No.
AND Criminal Appeal No.
2 and 3 were to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each number payment of fine.
On October 28, 1970 the Inspector asked the third appellant who was the Manager of the firm to produce the stock of the prohibited drugs.
96 of 1975.
K. Sen and S. K. Bisaria for the appellant in Cr.
As already stated the magistrate acquitted the appellants.
274/74.
168/74.
A. 120/75 and for the Petitioner in W.P. 2929/80.
The facts found by the High Court in this case are as follows.
2929 of 1980.
For purposes of the Act the first appellant is a manufacturer of the said drugs in view of the definition of the term manufacture occurring in section 3 f of the Act which is as follows manufacture in relation to any drug or companymetic includes any process or part of a process for making, altering, ornamenting, finishing, packing, labelling, breaking up or otherwise treating or adopting any drug or companymetic with a view to its sale and distribution but does number include the companypounding or dispensing of any drug, or the packing of any drug or companymetic in the ordinary companyrse of retail business and to manufacture shall be companystrued accordingly On February 27, 1970 on a search of the business premises of the first appellant, a Drugs Inspector seized 42 items of drugs from a room, 33 of which were number in the approved list of drugs appended to the licence issued to the first appellant.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution .
96/75.
The third appellant who is the Manager of the firm and was present during the search failed to disclose the source from which these drugs had been acquired.
A. No.
The first appellant holds a licence under the Act for repacking of drugs mentioned in the list which forms part of the licence.
Both these offences are punishable under section 27 b of the Act.
1 in spite of the prohibitory order under section 22 1 c thus companytravening rule 54A of the Rules framed under the Act.
Of the three appellants in this appeal the second and the third appellants are the same persons as in the other appeal.
Nettar for the respondent in all the matters.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Criminal Appeal No.
To a numberice issued under section 18A of the Act calling upon the first appellant to disclose the source of acquisition of the drugs seized, the reply, signed by the third appellant on behalf of the firm, was a denial of the fact that the drugs were found in their possession and that they were seized.
K. Bisaria for the appellant in Cr.
Batch No.
The appellants failed to disclose the source of acquisition of the aforesaid 33 items of drugs which were number in the approved list.
The first appellant M s. Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory is a firm of which the second appellant is a partner and the third appellant is the Manager.
96 of 1975 By the judgment impugned in this appeal which is also by special leave, the Karnataka High Court set aside an order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Ist Court , Bangalore City and companyvicted the appellants before us for having companymitted offences under section 18 a i and 18 a vi of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Another partner of the firm also figured as an accused in the companyplaint but as he was absconding the trial companyld number proceed against him.
120 of 1975 GUPTA, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Karnataka High Court by which the High Court set aside the acquittal of the three appellants before us ordered by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 4th Court , Bangalore and companyvicted them of various offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
