In a noteworthy development, the Supreme Court recently, while dealing with a Special Leave Petition, upheld a conviction order against an 85-year-old individual and his son for offences punishable under Section 27 (b) (ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, however, modified the sentence of imprisonment from 1 year to the effect that the petitioners shall serve their sentence for a day until the rising of the trial Court.

Section 27 (b) (ii) of the Act states that a Court may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three years and of fine of less than one lakh rupees, only for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment.

The Bench consisting of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar expressed their disinclination to interfere with the impugned order. However, after taking note of the submissions that the first petitioner is approximately 85 years old and the second petitioner happens to be his son, who works as a Sanskrit lecturer, the Court directed them to serve a one-day sentence, to be completed by the rising of the trial Court. "We are inclined to invoke proviso to Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as we find that there are adequate special reasons for the reduction of the sentence", observed the Bench in its order.

Accordingly, the Court ordered, "The sentence imposed for a period of one year stands modified to the effect that the petitioners shall undergo, sentence till the rising of the trial Court." The Court however refused to interfere with the fine imposed. "We further make it clear that the fine imposed shall stand confirmed", noted the Bench in its order. Further, for carrying out the aforesaid sentence, the Court directed the Petitioners to be present before the Court concerned on November 21, 2023.

S-legal Associates along with Advocates Sharanagouda Patil and Supreeta Patil appeared for the Petitioners while Advocate D. L. Chidananda appeared for the State of Karnataka.

Background: The Petitioners had approached the Apex Court challenging the Karnataka High Court's order which had set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Session Judge, Mysore. A private complaint was filed against the Petitioners in the year 2003 by an Assistant Drug Controller alleging the offences punishable under Sections Z7(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

The Petitioners were accused of stocking for sale, exhibiting for sale and offering for sale, drugs without possessing a valid drug license under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It was also found that the Petitioners had not taken any license for running the medical shop. Later, the Petitioners were convicted by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences but however, in appeal, were acquitted by the Session Court.

The State approached the High Court in an appeal challenging the acquittal order which was allowed. The High Court had observed, "If this type of defence would be accepted, then it would be very easy for the medical shops to run such medical shops without obtaining license by stating that the drugs are stored by the Doctors who run the clinic adjacent to or near their shops and thereby easily avoid the applicability of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act."

The High Court had directed the Trial Court to secure the presence of the Petitioners to undergo the sentence of imprisonment and fine.

Cause Title: S Srinivasan & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11461/2023]

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice MM SundreshJustice Aravind KumarDrugs & Cosmetics Act

Ramey Krishan Rana