STATE OF U P Vs. VIR SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONKARESHWAR Bhatt, J. The State of Uttar Pradesh has fired this appeal against judgment and order dated 14-3-1980 passed by the them III Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1979.

(2.) LEARNED A. G. A. appearing for the State and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior. Counsel appearing for the respondent, have been heard.

(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case accused was exhibiting for sale drugs of sub standard quality without a valid licence. The accused has accepted the factum of seizure of drug. His defence is that he was not selling the drug but was displaying it for trial and approval of the doctor. The accused claimed to be a medical representative of M/s Hygia Pharmaceutical Company, Faridabad and that he acquired the drug from Himalaya Medical Agency, Bodhana Gate, Meerut. A perusal of Section 18 of the Act shows that no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacture for sale or sell or store or exhibit for sale or distribute any drug which is not of a standard quality. Admittedly, the accused was not a manufacturer or stockist or distributor. The essential requirement of Section 18 appears to be that a drug which is not of standard quality is being sold or is being exhibited for sale. P. W. 1, D. K. Jaju, Inspector, who had made seizure, has stated that the accused was showing the medicines to the doctor with intention to sell. Dr. R. B. Rastogi, C. W. 1, has stated that the accused placed some medicines on the table for selling the same to him. He has further stated that the could not see the medicines when Inspector reached there and seized the same. He has further stated that some medicines were in the bag of the accused which were also seized. The statement of the doctor that the medicines were shown to him for the purposes of sale is based on his own imagination and conclusion. He could not definitely state if the accused was showing the medicines for selling the same. The evidence of Dr. R. B. Rastogi shows that some medicines were placed on his table when they were seized by the Inspector and some were also seized from the bag of the accused. The evidence of the doctor if taken as a whole goes to show that the accused was displaying the medicines to the doctor and before the doctor could see and examine them, they had been seized by the Inspector. Mere display of medicines to the doctor would not amount to its sale. From the time of seizure itself the accused claimed that he was a medical representative. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. he has stated that for display of the medicines no licence is needed and he was showing the medicines generally. One witness, Subhash Jain was present at the time of seizure but he has not been examined by the prosecution in this case. Mere display of medicines for the purposes of approval by the doctor would not amount to sale within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act.