MOHD. SHABIR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 997 · Decided: 17-01-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
' 
997 
MOHD. SHABIR 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
lanuarv I 7, 1979 
jS, MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.J 
Drugs and Cos1netics Act, 1940, S. 27, "Stocks or ixizibits for sale" inter-
pre1:11.un--Pos:,e:,.,ior1 sitnpliciter of drug, w!1ctfi,.,. sufficient for conviction. 
The appellant \Vas apprehended at the Bhusawal railway statitJn, and 
17 
containers with 17,000 white tablet~ v.rere recovered from him. The 
tablets 
were tested by the public analyst, and found to be not in accordance with the 
A 
B 
standard specified under s. 18(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The appel-
C 
lant was duly tried and convicted by the Trial Magistrate, under 
Sections 
27(a){ii) and 28 of the Act. 
The appellant pleaded guilty, and in view of his 
young aae, and that it was his first offence, the Magistrate sentenced him only 
till the rising of the Court. But in revision, the High Court enhanced the 
sentence to cine 
venr"~ R.l. 
It was contended that as there was no evidence to shov.· that the tablets 
were ''for sale", their possession simpliciter, of any quantity whatsoever, 'vould 
not constitute <1'fl offence under s. 27. 
Allowing the appeal as regards the conviction under s. 27, the Court, 
HELD : 1. 
Thr absence of any comma after the word "stocks" clearly indi~ 
cates that the clause "stocks or exhibit'\ for sale" is one indivisible whole and 
it contemplates not mere stocking the drugs, but stocking the drugs for 
the 
purpose of sale, and unless all the in2:redients of this category are satisfied, 
section 27 of the Act would not be sati..fied. 
[999 F-Gl 
2. There i') no evidence to show that t~e appellant had either ~ot these 
tablets. for sale. or 'vas selling them or had stocked them for s2Ae. 
Before a 
person can be liable for prosecution or conviction under s. 27(a)(i)(ii) read 
with s. 18(c) of the Act, it must be proved by the prosecution affirmatively 
I) 
E 
that he was manufacturing the drugs for sale or was selling the same, or had 
F 
~!L·cl.:ed lhun or exhibited the articles for sale. 
The pos'.lession si111pliciter of 
the arti~les does not app'ear to be punishable under any of the provisions of 
the Act. f999 G. 1 000 B-Cl 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 103 
of I 975. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
12-2-1973 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No. 774/ 
72 .. 
U. I'. Sinph for the Appellant. 
H. R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff for the Re>pondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
FAzAL Au, J.-Tn this appeal by special leave the appellant ha!!' 
been convicted under section 27 (a) (i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 2 S.C.R. 
Act, 1940 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one. year and a 
fine of Rs. 200/- as modified by the High Court. 
The trial court also 
convicted the appellant under ·section 27 (a) (ii) and section 28 of the 
Act but no separate sentence was awarded under these counts. The trial 
court had, in fact, imposed a sentence of imprisonment only till the. rising 
of the Court but the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction enhanced 
the sentence lo one year's rigorous imprisonment, and hence this appeal 
by sepcial leave. 
According to the prosecution, on 5.5.1970 at about 
11.30 a.m. the complainant Drugs Inspector, Jalagaon received a tele-
phonic meassage from the Senior Railway Sub-Inspector Bhusawal to 
the effect that the appellant had been caught at the Bhusawal railway 
station with 17 plastic containers containing 17,000 white coloured tab-
lets. 
On receiving this message the complainant went to Bhusawal 
railway station on the next day and after taking permission from the 
magistrate he took the sample or the tablets and sent it to the public 
analyst and after receiving his report, he filed a complaint against the 
appellant under the various sections of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 
1940. The learned trial magistrate framed two charges against the 
appellant. 
One charge was under section 27 (a) (i) and 27 (a) (ii) 
of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") 
and the other charge related to section 28 read with section 18A of tho 
Act. 
The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted all the 
facts contained in the charge. 
The appellant, however, stated that as 
this was his first offence, he promised not to commit any offence again 
and as he wa·s an agriculturist and a young man, he pleaded 

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