GOODWILL PAINT AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 27-09-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

GOODWILL PAINT AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRY 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
y 
SEPTEMBER 27, 1991 
[ KULDIP SINGH AND V. RAMASW AMI, JJ. ] 
B 
Poisons Act, 19.19-Sections 5, 2, Notification No. F.10/44172-fin. 
(G)-D/-7.8.1973 issued under the Delhi Poisons Rules-Constitutional 
validity of. 
Poisons Act, 1919-Sections 4, 2 read with Rule 13 of Delhi Poisons c 
Rules, 1926-J'Poisons" constrnction-ludicial notice of "thinner" being 
dangerous to lif~estriction on trade on poisonous substances--mzether 
reasonable. 
The Lt. Governor of Delhi amended the Delhi Poisons Rules, 1926 by D 
the Notification No. F.10/44172-fin. (G) dated 7.8.1973 by including to the 
list of substances included in the Rules as "Poisons", the substance 
commonly known as "thinner" containing spirit and other soluble 
material. 
The petitioners in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution E 
questioned the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Poisons Act, 1919 
on the groounds that the section gives an arbitrary power to the State 
Government to include any substance as poison for the purpose of 
restriction to be imposed on the possession for sale and sale of the same; 
--J.. 
that the restriction imposed on possession for sale and sale were not 
reasonable restrictions; that though the Act was a Central enactment, it F 
was possible of unjust and unjustified discriminatory application as it was 
left to each State Government to determine what substance they would 
include as poison, and that the substance, 'thinner', manufactured by the 
. petitioners would not come within the amended Rules. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court, 
.. G 
'-t 
HELD: 1. The object of the enactment is to regulate the possession 
for sale and the sale, whether wholesale or retail of poisons and the 
importation of the same. In other words, it is intended to control ()Ver the· 
traffic in poisons. [221 F] 
H 
219 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R. 
A 
2. The Poisons Act, 1919 enabled State Government to declare any 
k· 
substance as poison for the purposes of the Act by a notification under the 
.Act or the rules made under the Act. (221-G] 
3. It is not all poisonous substances that are brought within the 
regulation under the Act. It is those substances which the Government 
B consider its possession for sale or sale to be regulated in the interest of 
health and safety of the society. This limitation is inherent in the scheme of 
the Act itself. (223-C-D] 
.~ 
4. No comprehensive definition can be given to the word, "poison". 
C Under this term would_ fall anything calculated to destroy life. Substances 
harmless in themselves might become poison by the time or manner of 
their administration. Nothing is a f'.>ison unless regard be had to its 
administration. A substance may be a deadly poison or a valuable 
medicine according to how and how much is taken. If the resultant effect of 
administering into the system produces a violent, morbid or fatal changes 
D or which destroys living tissues, the substance can be safely called poison. 
'f 
Any substance which is used for purposes mentioned therein section 4 can 
definitely be declared as poison. (223 D-F] 
5. It has become a notorious fact that the substance known as 
E 'thinner' as it is or mixing with some other substances are taken as 
intoxicating spirits endangering the life. In many cases deat:is have also 
occurred due t6 drinking such substance. If the Government thought in 
the circumstances that the possession or sale of the same is to be regulated 
~ 
_ 
it could not be.said that they have no power to regulate. Section 2 also 
enables the Government to regulate the possession for sale and the sale of 
F the specified poison. (223 G-H; 224 A] 
6. The nature of trade in poison is such that nobody can be 
considered to have an absolute right to carry on the same. It is a business 
which can be termed even as inherently dangerous to health and safety of 
G society in view of the rampant misuse and sale to the· poor, weak and 
helpless as an intoxicant. A law in such circumstance can regulate the 
Y 
H 
. trade. It is also not necessary that the same substance should be declared 
as poison for the entire country. The notification and its application to any 
area would depend on the necessity to declare the substance ~ poison on 
the particular facts and situation prevailing in that area and the need to 
GOODWILL INDUSfRY v. U. 0. I. [RAMASWAMI, J.] 
221 
regulate the possession an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.