CHIMANLAL JAGJIVANDAS SHETH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 344 · Decided: 26-09-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
Septcmher, 26. 
344 SVPREJ\IE COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
CHIMANLAL JAGJIVANDAS SHETH 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(JAFER IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Drugs-Absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages awl gauze-
Whctncr drug.s-Sentence, reduction of-Drugs Act, 1940 (23 
of 1940),a.s amended by Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1955, ss. 3(b), 18. 
The appellant was found in possession of large quantities 
of absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages and gauze which he 
had manufactured. On analysis these were found to be sub-
standard and the appellant was prosecuted under s. 18 of the 
Drugs Act, 1940, for manufacturing sub-standard drugs. He 
was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment 
for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500J. 
The appellant 
contended that these articles were not drugs as defined ins. 3(b) 
of the Act and that the sentence imposed was too severe. 
Helll, that absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages and 
gauze \vere ''drugs" within the meaning of s. 3(b) and the 
appellant \.Yas rightly convicted. In the definition "drugs" 
"included substances intended to be used for or in treatn1cnt of 
diseases". 
"Substances" was something other than "medicines" 
and meant "things". The said articles were sterilized or other-
wise treated to n1ake them disinfectant; they were used for 
surgical dressings and \Vere essential 1naterials for treat1nent in 
surgical cases. The object of the Act of maintaining high 
standards of medical treatment would be defeated if the 
necessary conco1nitants of medical or surgical treatment were 
allowed to be diluted. 
Jleld, further, that the sentence erred on the side of leniency 
rather than severity and could not be reduced. It was a case 
where large quantities of spurious and sub-standard drugs had 
been manufactured by the appellant. He was guilty of an anti-
social act of a very serious nature. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 107 of 1961. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated June 16, 1961, of the Bombay High Court 
in Cr. A. No. 21 of 1961. 
I 
l S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
34.5 
R(1jni P(1tel, J. B. Dad;xchanji, 0. C. 111(),tlmr 
and R(J,vinder N (),min, for the appellant. 
H. R. Khann11, H. H. JJhebar 
and R. N. 
Sachthey, for the respondents. 
1062. September 2G. 
The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
SUBBA RAO, .J.-This appeal by special leave 
against the judgment of the High- Court of Judicature 
at Bombay raises the question of construction of 
s.3(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940, as amended by the 
Drugs (Amendment) Act, 
1955, hereinafter called 
the Act. 
This appeal has been argued on the basis of 
facts found by the High Court. 
The appellant \~as 
carrying on business in the name of Deepak Tradmg 
Corporation at Bulakhidas Building, Vithaldas Road, 
Bombay. On December 27, 1958, the Sub Inspector 
of Police, accompanied by the Drug Inspector, raided 
the said building and found large quantities of 
absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages, gauze and 
other things. 
It was found that the appellant was 
not only storing these goods in large quantities but 
was actually manufacturing them in Bombay and 
passing them off as though they were manufactured by 
a firm of repute in Secunderabad. The samples of 
the aforesaid articles and lint were sent to the Govern-
ment Analyst, who reported that out of the samples 
sent to him only the lint was of standard quality and 
the other articles were not of standard quality. The 
appc!lant was; prosecuted 
before the Presidency 
Magistrate, 16th Court, Bombay, 
for an offence 
under s. 1.8 of the Act, inter alia, for manufacturing 
drugs which were not of standard quality. The learned 
Presidency Magistrate acquitted the appellant on the 
ground . that the p~osecution had failed to prove that 
the ar!1cles were m the possession of the appellant. 
The High Court on a resurvey of the evidence came to 
a differen.t conclusion and found that the said articles 
1962 
Chimm1lal 
Jag}ivandrb' 
Sheth 
,., 
State of ,\faharashtrt 
Subba Rao, J. 
1962 
Chimanlal 
Jagjii•a11das Slielh 
v. 
State nf .A1aharashtra 
Subba Rao, J. 
346 SUPREJ.\1E COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
were not only found in the possession of the appellant 
but also were manufactured by him and that they 
were below the standard prescribed. 
On the finding, 
it convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and 
to pay a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.