Later, the companyplaint against Dr. Susheela Sahi was withdrawn and the case proceeded only against the appellant.
The learned additional Sessions Judge companysidered the evidence, and companyfirmed the findings recorded by the trial Magistrate.
The prosecution alleged that by sending this packet to Misri Singh both the appellant and his wife had companymitted an offence under s. 3 read with s. 7 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Objectionable Advertisement Act of 1954.
In this letter, Misri Singh also requested the doctor to send him a list of medicines that might have been printed by him and he promised to pay the requisite prices and suggested that the same should be sent by V.P.P. Thereupon, a packet companytaining Exhibits P 1 to P 6 which are companyies of the Homoeopathic Doctor and Ex.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 9, 1962, of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Criminal Revision Application No.
The High Court was number impressed by this argument.
At the trial, evidence was given by Mr. Seth, Misri Singh and Dr. Anant Parkash, with whom Misri Singh works as a clerk.
P 1 to P 7 had been sent by the appellant to Misri Singh.
The appellant was questioned by the learned Magistrate, who tried the case, and he admitted that Exs.
P 1 to P 7 had been sent to Misri Singh.
The appellant then took this matter before the High Court by a revisional application It was urged before the High Court on his behalf that in deciding the question as to whether the appellant was guilty under s. 3 read with s. 7 the effect of the provisions companytained in s. 14 1 c had number been properly appreciated.
On these facts, the learned Magistrate held that the appellant was guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.
281 D of 1961.
Exhibits P 1 to P 6 which are the numbers of the publication Homoeopathic Doctor did number companye within the mischief of the Act, but Ex.
Inasmuch as it was found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the appellant had sent Ex.
P 7 to Misri Singh, his companyviction was held to be justified under s. 3 read with s. 7 of the Act.
1,000.
The appellant challenged the companyrectness of this order by an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge at New Delhi.
It is against this order that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
Misri Singh had written to the appellant under the instructions of Mr Seth, who is an officer in the Delhi Administration.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
500 would meet the ends of justice.
157 of 1962.
It appears that on May 15, 1958 Misri Singh wrote to the appellant that the medicines manufactured by him were proving effective, and he therefore requested the appellant to send him his magazine Homoeopathic Doctor from January 15, 1958 up to the date of the letter.
P 1 to P 7.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. The appellant, Dr. Yash Pal Sahi, and his wife Dr. Susheela Sahi, are the proprietors, of a homoeopathic hospital at Jangpura in New Delhi.
K. Khanna and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
Accordingly, the revisional application filed by the appellant was dismissed.
That is why when the packet was received by Misri Singh it was opened by him in the presence of Mr. Seth and other witnesses and the packet was found to companytain Exs.
November 29, 1963.
It is a list of medicines, and it purports to advertise the said medicines by describing their effect, and prices of the medicines are also printed.
They also run a journal called the Homoeopathic Doctor.
P. Goyal, for the appellant.
The findings made by the appellate Court show that the parcel companytaining Exs.
P 7, which is a list of medicines was sent to Misri Singh on May, 24, 1958.
In the result, the order of companyviction passed against the appellant was affirmed but in regard to the sentence the learned Additional Sessions Judge took the view that a fine of Rs.
