Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: 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