CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High 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,

Latest Legal News