TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by the Civil and Sessions Judge of Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 454 of 1960 in a case under Ss. 18(a)(1) and 18(c) read with S. 27 of the Drugs Act, 1940.
(2.) RESPONDENT S.C. Sen Gupta is the proprietor of M/s. Research Institute of Herbal Products at Hardwar district, Saharanpur and deals in the manufacture and sale of Ayurvedic medicines. On a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Saharanpur in November, 1956 that the sample of "Arjuna Lot No. 2" an Ayurvedic injectible taken from his shop was found not of standard quality when analysed by the Government Analyst the respondent was prosecuted for offences under Ss. 18(a)(1) and 18(c) of the Drugs Act read with S. 27 of the Drugs Act before a Magistrate at Hardwar who held him guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under the two counts and directed the sentences to run concurrently. The respondents defence before the trial Court was that "Arjuna" is an Ayurvedic medicine which is not covered by the Drugs Act and as the injectibles were exclusively prepared from "Arjuna" in accordance with Ayurvedic system he had not committed any offence. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge held that "Arjuna Lot No. 2" of which a sample was taken on 17-10-1955 and analysed by the Government Analyst was a medicine exclusively prepared for use in accordance with Ayurvedic system of medicine and it did not fail within the definition of the word Drug given in Cl. (b) of S. 3. This finding was arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge because on an assessment of evidence he had reached a conclusion that the use of infections as a mode of administration of medicine was known to the Ayurvedic system and "Arjuna Lot No. 2" had been prepared in accordance with that system. He therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences of the respondent.
(3.) THE courts below proceeded mainly on the footing as to whether injection thereby was known or unknown to the Ayurvedic system of treatment. The trial Magistrate held that there was no mention of any process or method in the Ayurvedic about giving injections by a hollow needle and that there was no scientific method for preparing such injections. He, therefore, held that the injectibles in question were covered by the provisions of the Drugs Act. On the other hand the lower appellate court on the basis of the evidence furnished by Sri R.V. Dhulekar, Ex. Chairman of the Legislative Council. Uttar Pradesh and Founder-President of the Ayurvedic University at Jhansi and from Exhibit 1 which purported to be a report on the experiments by the Research Department of the aforesaid University came to the conclusion that Ayurvedic injections could be prepared and used for the treatment of various diseases.;