H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) Main point raised by the applicant, in this Criminal Revision, is that the medicine in question was an Ayurvedic preparation and as such it did not come within the purview of the expression 'Drug' as used in Drugs Act, 1940. Accordingly, courts below were not justified in convicting him for an offence u/S. 18/27 of that Act.
(2.) In this connection, learned counsel relied upon two decisions of this Court in the cases Ishwar Singh Bindra v. State of U.P. AIR 1966 All. 168 and The State of U.P. v. S.C. Sen Gupta 1966 AWR 160 wherein it has been held that Ayurvedic preparations are not covered by the expression 'Drug' as defined by S.3(b) of the Drugs Act. Accordingly, it is not possible to convict a person for an offence u/S. 18 read with S. 27 of the Drugs Act with regard to an Ayurvedic medicine.
(3.) In these two cases, the court interpreted the definition of 'Drug' as given in Drugs Act, 1940 prior to its amendment in the year 1964. At this time, the expression 'Drug' was defined in S. 3(b) of the Act as follows:- "Drug includes (1) All medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease in human beings or animals other than medicines and substances exclusively used or prepared for use in accordance with Ayurvedic or Unani system of medicine.";