Gratuity Is A Statutory Right, Cannot Be Denied On Vague Allegations Of Abandonment: Calcutta High Court Directs Employer To Pay Pending Gratuity With Interest Prosecutrix Is a Victim of Crime, Not an Accomplice — Sole Testimony Sufficient for Conviction If It Inspires Confidence: Bombay High Court Rape Is An Offence Against Society And Not A Matter To Be Left For Compromise: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings Under Section 376 IPC And U.P. Conversion Prevention Act Despite Settlement Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Compartmentalized Horizontal Reservation in Sports Quota for MBBS Admissions Total Non-Compliance of Section 42 Vitiates the Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in 25-Year-Old NDPS Case Involving 30 Bags of Poppy Husk An Advocate’s Office Situated in a Commercial Building Qualifies as Non-Residential Use Entitling Eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Criminal History—Conspiracy Allegations Alone Insufficient Without Direct Role in SC/ST Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Vested Right to Retain Government Accommodation After Losing Public Office — Penal Rent Justified for Unauthorized Occupation: Patna High Court These Litigations Appear to Be Luxury Litigations: Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost on Over 6400 Petitioners Seeking Revival of TET-Based Selection Process Rule 6(2) Is Not a Cut-Off Provision—Supreme Court Declares Candidates Eligible If D.El.Ed. Was Completed Before Selection Implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Cannot Be Halted on the Basis of Belated and Baseless Custody Without Communication of Grounds Is No Custody in Law —Violation of Articles 21 and 22 Nullifies Arrest and Remand: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Arrest of Music Producer as Illegal Scribe Is Not a Substitute for Attesting Witness—Will Must Satisfy Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects 45-Year-Old Testamentary Claim Removal From Service With Superannuation Benefits Entitles Employee to Pension: Supreme Court Acknowledgment of Liability Extends Limitation — Pendency of Appeal No Ground to Resist Recovery: Supreme Court Sympathy Cannot Override Binding Conditions of Tender: Supreme Court Sets  Aside High Court’s Direction to Alter Applicant’s Group Classification for BPCL Dealership Land Acquisition | Factory Without CLU Can't Claim Land Release Despite Long Possession; However, Compensation Under 2013 Act Granted : Supreme Court Person’s Identity Is Not Lost If a Machine Fails to Recognize Them: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes LIC’s Rejection Over Biometric Mismatch Mother Cannot Mask Paternity to Satisfy Ego: Bombay High Court Rejects Petition to List Woman as ‘Single Parent’ in Child’s Birth Certificate Transferee Pendente Lite Is Bound by the Decree—Cannot Obstruct Execution Proceedings: Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Revisional Court for Overreach Higher Placement in Seniority List Cannot Be Ignored: Supreme Court Upholds Direction to Consider Contractual Worker for Appointment on Par with Others Regularised CBI Investigation is Not to Be Ordered Routinely on Vague Allegations: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Order Directing CBI Probe in Extortion Case When Aggressors Trespass Armed into a Dwelling and Cause Fatal Injuries, Exception to Murder Does Not Arise: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction under Section 302 IPC Delayed Payment for 50 Years Warrants Reasonable Interest, But Excessive Rates Cannot Be Granted": Supreme Court

Intent to Sell/Distribute Unproven, Imprisonment Unjustified: SC Modifies Sentence to Fine for Doctor in Drugs and Cosmetics Act Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, has modified the sentence of a doctor convicted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Court observed that the intent to sell or distribute was unproven and hence, imprisonment was deemed unjustified. Instead, a fine was imposed, reflecting a nuanced approach to sentencing.

The case involved Dr. Palani, who ran a clinic that was inspected by state officials on October 13, 2015. The inspection uncovered 29 types of allopathic medicines being held without proper licensing. The prosecution was based on these findings, leading to the doctor's conviction for offenses under Sections 18(c) and 18(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

The key legal issue revolved around whether the medicines were possessed for the purpose of sale/distribution. The lower appellate court, while setting aside the conviction under Section 18(c), upheld the conviction under Section 18(A) based on non-disclosure of the manufacturer’s name. The Supreme Court's re-evaluation focused on the nature of the offense and the background of the appellant. The Court noted that there was no evidence of the drugs being sold and that non-disclosure of the manufacturer’s name for a small quantity of medicines did not significantly endanger public interest.

Acknowledging the appellant's profession as a doctor and the minor nature of the offense, the Supreme Court set aside the sentence of imprisonment. The Court imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, stating that imprisonment would be unjustified under the circumstances.

Palani Vs. The Tamil Nadu State,

Date of Decision: 14th February 2024,

Similar News