LexISHWAR SINGH BINDRA & ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
. 219
ISHW AR SINGH BINDRA & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF U.P.
May 2, 1968
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND
A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Drugs Act, 1940 s. 3(b) (i)-Definition of 'drug'-Scope of-Medi·
cines and substances used or prepared for use in accordance with Ayur ...
vedic or Unanl systen1s-When excluded.
The Inspector of Drugs, Agra Region, filed a complaint in July 1963 be,
fore a Magistrate at Mathura alleging a preparation called anti-pblogistic
plaster was manufactured and soid by a firm of which the first two
appellants wero partners and the third appellant was the Manager; the
label on the plaster showed the constituents to be three drugs which are
to be found in pharmacopoeias prescribed under the Drugs Act,
1940
but did not bear a maimfacturing licence number and other particulars
required to be given under r. 96 of the Drug Rules, 1945. As the drug
fell within the mischief of s. 17(e) of the Act, it must he deemed to
be 'misbranded'. Moreover the label of the plaster showed that it was
'a Unani preparation which was apparently a false and misleading claim.
Accordingly, it was alleged that offences bad been committed under
s. 18(a)(ii) read with ss. 27(a) and (b) of the Act for selling a mis-
branded drug as per s. 17(f) and s. 17(e) respectively of the Act and
under s. 18(b) read with s. 27(b) of the Act for selling the same drug
which bad been manufactured without a licence required for the purpose
under the Act.
The appellants filed a petition under s. 561A of the Criminal Pro-
cedure Olde in the High Court in March 1964 and claimed int.r alia
that the plaster was not a drug as defined in the Act and praying that
the entire proceedings pursuant to the complaint be quashed. It was
contended that in the definition of a drug In s. 3 (b )(i) of the Act in
the expression "other than medicines and substances exclusively used or
prepared for use in accordance with the Ayurvedic or Unani Systems
of medicine" the adverb "exclusively" governed the word "use" only and
did not govern the words "prepared fOr use".
The High Court was of
the view that the intention of the legislature appeared to be to exclude
from the definition of dntg such medicines and substances which were
used exclusively in accordance with the A)rurvedic or Unani system of
medicine or which were prepared for use exclusively in accordance with
the aforesaid system; but it declined to go into the disputed questions
of fact as to whether the plasters in question fell within the exception
as this was required to be determined on expert evidence
On appeal lo this Court by certificate,
HELD : dismissing the appeal :
The expression "substances" in the definition of drug contained in
s. 3 (b) means
something other than
"medicines". The word
"and"
used in the definition of drug in s. 3 (b )( i) between "medicines" and
"substances" is to be read disjunctively. [225 F-G]
The scheme of cl. (i) of s. 3(b) is to take in all •medicines or sub·
st~11c~s with \h~ ('XCeption of such m~~ici11cs or subst~nces whicb
i1f~
220
SUPREME COURT RFPORTS
(1969] J S.C.R.
exclusively used or preporcd for u>c ia accordance with the AyurVcdic
A -
or Unani system of medicines.
The exception made in the ca~c of the
latter cJ;iss of medicines or suhstances \\'as essentially meant to cover
only such medicines or substances \Vhich y,·cre used in the Ayurvedic or
Unani system or \Vere prepared for use in accordance with those systems.
[226 A.:.....Bl
Medicines or_ sub~tanccs have to be taken as a who1e and in the pre~
sent cases it would h.wc to be decided by the trial court whether
the
B
plasters in question arc mc<llcines ''·hich arc exclusively uo::cd or
v.·hich
have been prepared for use cxcJusivcly in
accordance with the Ayur-
vedic or Gnani system of medicine.
The High Court was ris:ht in its
view that the adverb "excl11sivcly" must he taken to
govern the
words
"used" as \&.'ell as "prepared for use"; but each individual in~edicnt or
component· of the prepJration in question will not be the decisive or
detCTinining factor and what the court will have to decide after recording
such evidence as mav be produced will be whether the plasters sotisfy
C
the above tO't. If thev fulfil that test thev would be excluded from the
definition of dru.g os contained in s. 3(b)(i). [226 E---0)
Chimmi/a/ Jagjivmulas Sheth v. Stair of Maharashtra, (1963) Supp. I
S.C.R. 3.44; Stroud's JudiciaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.