M/S. INDIAN CHEMICAL & PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 110 · Decided: 07-10-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
110 
M/S. INDIAN CHEMICAL & PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
October 1; 1965 
[P. 
B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
C.J., K. 
N. 
WANCHOO, 
B 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Chloral Hydrate 
(Chloral) 
Rules 1962-Validity of. 
The appellant was a manufacturer of drugs, (including chloral hydrate) 
in Hyderabad. In 1962, the State of Andhra Pradesh issued the Andhra 
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Chloral Hydrate (Chloral) Rules with respect 
C 
to manufacture, possession, sale import, export and transport of chloral 
hydrate under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Intoxicating Drugs 
Act of 1333 Fasli, as amended by the Hyderabad Opium and Intoxicating 
Drugs (Amendment) Act of 1953. The Rules provided that the manufac-
ture of chloral hydrate shall be in accordance wi'h the conditions of a 
licence granted by the Excise Commissioner on payment of the excise 
duty of Rs. 500 per annum. The appellant refused to .take licence and 
challenged the validity of the Rules by a writ petition, but the High Court 
dismissed the petition., 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant ccntended that (i) the 1333 F 
Act had been repealed in toto by the introduction into the State of the 
Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 and the Drugs Act 1940, and therefore .. there 
was no power in the Hyderabad legislature to amend the 1333-F Act by 
the 1953 Act, and in consequence; there was no law in force 011 the 
basis of which the Rules could be promulgated in 1962; and (ii) even if 
the Act was not repealed, the Rules were not within tho powers conferred 
by the 1333-F Act as amended in 1953, as chloral hydrate was not a 
narcotic or narcotic drug within the meaning of item 51, List II of the 7th 
Schedule to the Constitution. 
D 
E 
HELD : The 1333-F Act continued in existence in so far as it dealt 
with collection of duties of excioe on substances covered by it and it 
could therefore be amended by .the 1953 Act. [117 FJ 
F 
The 1333-F Act was in the nature of an excise Act and provided for 
licences and collection of duties of excise and made provisio11s incidental 
thereto. It applied to the intoxicating drugs mentioned therein and other 
intoxicating drugs which might be notified by the Government. The Act 
continued in force in Hyderabad after 26th January 1950. In 1950, the 
Dangerons Drugs Act w"' applied by Parliament, to 
Hyderabad, 
by 
Cen'ral Act 33 of 1950. This Act however, is not an Act imposing duties 
G 
of excise. Consequently., it could not affect that part of the 1333-F Act 
which dealt with the grant of licences, and collection of duties of excise. 
Further, as a result of s. 39(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act dealing with 
the saving of local and special laws and entry 51 of List II, the introduction 
of the Act in Hyderabad did not result in complete effacement of the 1333-F, 
Act. It remained alive with respect to substances which might be ·notified 
as intoxicating drugs under the 1333-F Act. If there was any such noti-
H 
fication before 1950, that notification would be valid and the Act would 
apply to it. If there was no such notification, th-e Act would remain on the 
statute book as a conditional statute under which a notification could be 
Jssued. {114 G-H; 115 E-F; 116 A-CJ 
f' c
~!' -
-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
INDIAN CHEMICAL V. STATE (Wanchoo, J.) 
I 11 
The Drugs Act was extended to Hyderabad by Central Act 3 of 1951. 
This Act is mainly concerned with the standard and quality of drugs 
manufactured and therefore controls the manufacture, sale and distribution 
of drugs. 
H has also nothing '10 do with duties of excioo and with their 
imposition on narcotics and narcotic. drugs. 
Therefore, the fact that this 
Act was introduced into Hyderabad in 1951 would not affect in any way 
that part of the 1333-F Act which dealt with collection of. excise duties 
and provided for licences in that connection, as such duties can be imposed 
only by the State legislature under item 51 of List II. Hence, the 1333-F 
Act in so far as it deals with the collection of duties of excise on anv drugs 
which are narcotics or narcotic drugs would remain alive 10 that ·extent. 
[116 D-G; 117 D-Fl 
(ii) Narcotic is a .substance which in small doses relieves pain and 
produces sleep and since it was admitted by the appellant ~hat chloral 
hydrate is hypnotic and sedath·e, it would be a narcotic within the mean-
ing of entry 51 of List II. 
The statement in the respondents' affidav

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