LexBALAKRISHNA PILLAI, CHIEF INSPECTOR OF DRUGS INTELLIGENCE SQUAD, TRIVANDRUM AND ANOTHER versus MATHA MEDICALS AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, CHIEF INSPECTOR OF DRUGS INTELLIGENCE SQUAD, TRIVANDRUM 1-ND ANOTHER v. MATHA MEDICALS AND OTHERS JANUARY 15, 1991 [B.C. RAY AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.] Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1979-Paras 10-14, 18 and 21- Collection of excess price when drug's maximum retail price fixed- --'- Maintainability of prosecution-'Bulk drug'-'Formulation'-Inter- pretation of. -.._,./ ' Respondent No. lis a firm dealing in medicines and respondents 2 and 3 are its managing parnter and pharmacist. In contravention of the provisions of Drugs (Price Control) Order 1979, para 21 read with para 18 they charged from a Nursing Assistant of the Medical College Hospi- tal, Kottayam, Rs.90 in excess of the maximum retail price fixed for the sale of 15 tablets of Largactil of 100 mg each and 60p in excess for 100 tablets of Hipnotex of 5mg each. According to the prosecution this act of their's being in contravention of the provisions of the Order, was punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and accordingly prosecution was initiated against the respondents. The trial court found the respondents guilty and convicted them and sen~enced respondent No. 1 firm to a fme of Rs.2,000 and respondents 2 and 3 to three months simple imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court of Kerala acquitted them taking the view that none of the aforesaid two m~dicines, namely Largactil and Hipnotex were 'formulations' as defined in Section 2(t) of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order 1979 and as such the sale of these drugs at higher rates than. the prescribed was not punishable under paras 21 read with para 18 of the order. ~ The appellants have thus filed this appeal after obtaining special ~ leave. The question for decision in the present case relates to the cor- rectness of the construction made by the High Court of the provisions of the 'Order'. Partly allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: A bulk drug is one which may be capable of use by itself or ---< as an ingredient in any formulation. [ 69G] A B c D F G Formulation is a medicine which may comprise even of one bulk H 65 A B c D 66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R. drug by itself or mor_e than one bulk drug. The definition of 'Formula- tion' is very wide and includes even one bulk drug where that one bulk ~ drug by itself is treated as a medicine. [70B] The provisions of para 21 which in terms are meant to control sale prices of formulations specified in the Third Schedule as also the other provisions of the Order whi<,:h in terms may be of limited application are specifically made applicable to all formulations as defmed in the Order except only paragraphs 10 to 14 which have been expressly excluded. It is by virtue of para 18 that the prohibition contained in para 21 has been made applicable to formulations not specified in the Third Schedule. [70G-H] The High Court misconstrued the provisions of the Drugs (Price Control) Order 1979. The Court rejected that construction and held that the allegations in the present case, if proved, would amount to a contravention of para 21 r~ad with para 18 of the 'Order' which is punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Court however did not interfere with the acquittal of the res- pondents. [72B-C] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1991. E From the Judgment and Order dated 7.3.1989 of the Kerala High F Court in Crl, Appeal No. 321of1986. P.S. Poti and T.T. Kunhikannan for the Appellants, T .S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer and N. Stidhakaran for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. The respondents were found guilty by the trial Court for contravention of para 21 read with para 18 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order) G issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and accordingly. convicted under Section 7 of the Act. Respondent No. 1 firm was sentenced.to a fin-e of )- 1Rs.2,000 while respondents 2 and 3 who were the managing partner and pharmacist of the firm were sentenced to three months simple Imprisonment. The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (hereinafter H referred to as 'the High Court') allowed their appeal against the con- J l B. PILLAI v. MATHA MEDICALS [VERMA, J.] 67 viction and sentence and acquitted all of them. Hence, this special leave petition against their a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.