SABINA,J. - (1.) Petitioner had faced trial qua offence punishable under Section 18-c read with Section 27-(b)(ii) and 18-A read with Section 28 of the The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(2.) Trial court vide judgment/order dated 20.8.2001 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 18-c read with Section 27-(b)(ii) and 18-A read with Section 28 of the Act. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 4.6.2004. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. There was no material on record to establish that the petitioner had stocked the medicines-in question for the purposes of sale. None of the medicines were found to be adulterated or misbranded. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1979) 1 Supreme Court Cases 568 in case of Mohd, Shabir v. State of Maharashtra, decided on 17 January, 1979, wherein, it was held as under:- "On an interpretation of section 27, it seems to us that the arguments of Mr. Singh are well founded and must prevail. The words used in section 27, namely, "manufacture for sale", sells, have a comma after each clause but there is no comma after the clause "stocks or exhibits for sale". Thus the section postulate three separate categories of cases and no other; (1) manufacture for sale; (2) actual sale; (3) stocking or exhibiting for sale or distribution of any drugs. The absence of any comma after the word "stocks" clearly indicates that the clause "stocks or exhibits for sale" is one indivisible whole and it contemplates merely stocking the drugs but stocking the drugs for the purpose of sale and unless all the ingredients of this category are satisfied, section 27 of the Act would be attracted. In the present case there is no evidence to show that the appellant had either got these tablets for sale or was selling them or had stocked them for sale. Mr. Khanna appearing for the State, however, contended that the word "stock" used in section is wide enough to include the possession of a person with the tablets and where such a person is in the possession of tablets of a very huge quantity, a presumption should be drawn that they were meant for sale or for distribution. In our opinion, the content on is wholly untenable and must be rejected. The inter predation sought to be placed by Shri Khanna does flow from a true and proper interpretation of section 27. We, therefore, hold that before a person can be liable for prosecution or conviction under section 27 (a) (i) (ii) read with section 18 (c) of the Act, it must be proved by the prosecution affirmatively that he was manufacturing the drugs for sale or was selling the same or had stocked them or exhibited the articles for sale. The possession simpliciter of the articles does appear to be punishable under any of the provisions of the Act. If, therefore, the essential ingredients of section 27 are satisfied the plea of guilty cannot lead the Court to convict the appellant." Learned state counsel has opposed the petition.;