Medicines Kept On Rack Inside Clinic Without Licence Violates Section 27 Of Drugs And Cosmetics Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that medicines kept on the rack inside the clinic without licence, violates Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (DC Act).

The Court held thus in a Criminal Revision preferred against the Judgment of the Sessions Judge vide which the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) were upheld.

A Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed, “In the present case, the drugs were found on the rack inside the clinic and learned Trial Court had rightly held that this violated Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.”

The Bench said that there is no infirmity in the Judgments and Order passed by Courts convicting the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the DC Act.

Senior Advocate N.K. Thakur and Advocate Karanveer Singh Thakur appeared for the Petitioner/Accused while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Lokender Kutlehria appeared for the Respondent/State.

Case Background

A Drugs Inspector inspected a clinic in 2001 with the assistance of police and the Petitioner-accused was present over there. He had displayed a variety of allopathic drugs for sale. The Complainant disclosed his identity to the accused and asked him to produce the drug licence or a certificate of a registered Medical Practitioner. However, the accused could not produce the same and he rather produced photocopies of certificates of Akhil Bhartiya Ayurvedic Vidyapeeth, Agra. The allopathic drugs were seized after making an entry in Form 16. The drugs were put in a carton, and the carton was sealed. An application was filed for obtaining the custody of drugs, which was handed over to the Drugs Inspector.

Letters were written to the Drugs Controlling Authority for seeking prosecution sanction and the same was obtained. Letters were written to the Registrar Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of medicines for verifying the genuineness of the certificates. Thereafter, the Complainant filed a complaint against the accused, alleging that he was not authorised to practice in Homoeopathy or any other system of medicine. The Trial Court summoned the accused and he was charged for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the DC Act. The accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. He challenged this before the Sessions Judge which upheld his conviction. Hence, he was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “Learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, pay a fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days. The accused was found in possession of allopathic medicines, and he had no certificate/ licence to possess them.”

The Court added that the Trial Court had rightly noticed that the possession of these drugs adversely affected public health and should be seriously viewed.

“The Court cannot ignore the impact of the crime while imposing the sentence, and the learned Trial Court was justified in considering the same. Keeping in view the impact on public health, the sentence of one month cannot be said to be excessive”, it further said.

The Court was of the view that the plea on behalf of the accused to reduce the sentence cannot be accepted because of the lapse of time since the incident.

“The Court has to impose a deterrent sentence to dissuade people from playing with the lives of others by stocking the allopathic drugs for sale. Therefore, there is no justification for the reduction of the sentence”, it also observed.

The Court, therefore, concluded that there is no reason to interfere with the Judgments and Order passed by the Courts.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Revision and upheld the conviction.

Cause Title- Sanjay K. Maanav v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:29661)

Click here to read/download the Judgment