DR. YASH PAL SAHI versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Citation: [1964] 5 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 29-11-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
1963 
It appears that cl. 3(2) may have been deliberately 
worded so as to raise a limited presumption in order to 
Manipur 
exclude cases of cultivators who may on occasions 
Administration be in possession of more than 100 mds. of foodgrains 
v. 
grown in their fields. If a cultivator produces more 
M. Nila 
than 100 mds. in his fields or otherwise comes into 
Chandra Singh possession of such quantity of foodgrains once in a 
year and casually sells them or stores them, the Order 
Gajendragadkar apparently did not want to make such possession, 
J. · 
sale or storage liable to be punished under cl. 3(1) 
read with s. 7 of the Essenti!J,l Commodities Act. 
However that may be, having regard to the words 
used in cl. 3(2), we are unable to hold that the Judicial 
Commissioner was wrong in coming to the conclusion 
that cl. 3(2) by itself would not sustain the prosecution 
case that the respondent is a dealer under cl. 3(1); 
and that inevitably means that the charge under s. 7 
of the Essential Commodities Act is not proved against 
him. That being so, we must hold that the order of 
acquittal passed by the Judicial Commissioner is 
right. 
1963 
November 29 
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
DR. YASH PAL SAHi 
v. 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION 
(P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) 
Act, 1954 ss. 2(d), 3, 7, l4(l)(c)-"Taking any part in the publication 
of any advertisement"-Meaning of-If includes sending within 
the territory of India-Burden of proof-Conditions to be satisfied 
to fall under s. 14(l)(c). 
· 
The appellant is the proprietor of a Homoeopathic hospital 
in New Delhi. He runs a journal called the "Homoeopathic Doctor'.'. 
-
t 
-
-
-
•.. 
5 S:C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
583 
On the request of one Misri Singh the appellant sent copies of the 
said journal and a list of medicines by V.P.P. Misri Singh was 
neither a registered medical practitioner nor a wholesale or retail 
Chemist even though he was working with a registered medical 
practitioner as his clerk. The list of medicines sent by the appellant 
to Misri Singh bore in printed indelible ink the statement that it 
was meant for the use of medical practitioners alone. The appellant 
was prosecuted under s. 3 read with s. 7 of the Drugs and Magic 
Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954. The trial 
Magistrate found him guilty of the offence charged and sentenced 
him to a fine of Rs. 1000. On appeal the Additional Sessions 
Judge confirmed the conviction but reduced the fine to Rs. 500. 
The appellant's revision petition was dismissed by the High Court 
The present appeal is on special leave granted by this Court. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that s. 3 is subject 
to the other provisions of the Act and therefore it is subject to 
s. 14 which provides that any advertisement sent confidentially 
in the prescribed manner to a registered medical practitioner or 
wholesale or retail chemist is exempted from the other provisions 
of the Act. Relying on this section it was argued that since the 
appellant requested in writing to send the offending articles the 
appellant had no duty to enquire whether that person is a registered 
medical practitioner or chemist. Further the appellant relied 
on rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Act and contended that 
_ inasmuch as the list sent by him bore the words printed in indelible 
ink "For the use only of registered medical practitioners" he has 
complied with the provisions of law. 
· 
Held: (i) The definition ot "taking any part in the publication 
of any advertisement" contained ins. 2(d} of the Act is wide enough 
to include the printing of the advertisement and the sending of 
it in any part oflndia. Before a person is penalised it is not necessary 
to show that the contravention brought home to him is in the 
nature of habitual contravention. A single contravention will make 
a person guilty under s. 7. 
(ii) Section 3 is subject to the provisions of s. 14 and if the 
appellant's case falls under s. 14, s. 3 cannot be invoked against him. 
The prosecution has to show that the person to whom the list was 
sent is not a medical practitioner. 
Once this is established it 
is for the appellant to satisfy the court that his case falls under 
s. 14(l){c). The fact that the appellant has complied with one 
of the conditions prescribed under r. 6 will not bring th

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