RAJASTHAN PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORY, BANGALORE AND TWO OTHERS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 604 · Decided: 14-01-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

604 
A 
RAJASTHAN PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORY, 
BANGALORE AND TWO OTHERS 
p 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
January 14, 1981 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND A. C. GUPTA, JJJ 
Drugs and Cosn1etics Act, 1940-0.ffe;nce.s under sec. 18 (c), (Sale without 
lice1ice); under sec. 18(a)(i), (Selling sub·standard quality drugs); under sec. 
28 (non~di.sclosure of source of purchase of drugs exhibited for sale); and under 
sec. 18(a)(vi), (disposing of drugs against prohibitory 
orders) 
under 
sec. 
22(1)(c) of tile Act and Rule 54A of the rules framed thereunder-Sentences 
validity of-Vicarious liability of partners under sec. 34 of the Act-Fine 
ordered in excess of the statutory nzaximum under sec. 1SA is not in order-
Whcther the additional sentence of imprisonment on one of the 
accused 
for 
the satne offence lras illegal-Plea of ignorance about the sub-standard quality 
woilld be a valid defence only as provided by sub-sec. (2) and (3) of sec. 19 
of the Act--Sec. 22(1)(c) of the Act does not provide for a separate punish-
ment ill c1ddition to sec. 27(b) of the Act. 
M/s. Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory, first appellant in Criminal 
Appeal No. 120 of 1975 is a firm of which the second appellant is a. partner 
and the third appellant is a manager. 
The first appellant holds a licence under 
the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for re-packing of drugs mentioned in the 
E 
list \V'hich forms part of the licence and, therefore, is a manufa.cturer of the 
said drugs for the purposes of the Act in vie\V of the definition of the term 
"manufacture" occurring in sec. 3 (f) of the Act. The second and the third 
appellant are also a partner and a manager respectively of the first appellant, 
M/s. Manoi Drug House & others, in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1975. 
A search of the business premises in Criminal Appeal 120 of 1975 resulted 
F 
in seizure of sub-standard drug, "Sodium Bromide J.P." Batch No. 1 and in 
Criminal Appeal 96 of 1975 of a sub-standard drug "Liquid Paraffin I.P. 450 
ml. Batch No. 1'. 
Be&ides the three appellants in these two appeals, another partner of these 
two firms figured as an accused in the compla-int but as be was absconding the 
trial could not proceed against him. In Criminal Appeal 120 of 
1975 
tho 
appellants were charged under sections 18(c), 18(a)(1) and 28 of the Drugs 
and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and in Criminal Appeal 96 
of 
1975 
they were 
charged under sections 18(a)(i) a-nd 18(a)(ii). 
The appellants in both the appeals were acquitted by the trial court. 
But 
in appeals preferred by the State, the High Court in Criminal Appeal 120 of 
1975, sentenced each of the three appellants to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 on each 
of the counts in defa-ult appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were to undergo simple im-
prisonment for three months "for each non-payment of line". 
For the sa1ne 
offences the High Court further sentenced the third appellant "by virtue of sec. 
34(2) of the Act to undergo simple imprisonment for three months on each 
., 
RAJASTHAN PHARMACEUTICAL V. KARNATAKA 
605 
count and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 on each count and in default of payment to 
A 
simple imprisonment for one month for "each non~payment of 
fine". The 
substantive sentences passed on the third appellant were directed to run con .. 
currently. In Crimin•! Appeal 96 of 1975 the High Court 
convicted 
thel 
accused under sec. 18(a)(i) and sec. 18(a)(vi) and sentenced each of them to 
pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each count, the second and the third appellants 
were to undergo simple imprisopment for one month in default of payment. 
The I-Iigh Court further convicted them "for having committed the 
offence 
B 
punishable unde: sec. 22 (I)( c)" and sentenced "each one of the accused to 
pay a fine of Rs. 1000 for the ol!ence under sec. 22(1)(c)". 
Allowing both the appeals in part and remanding Criminal Appeal 120 of 
1975 to the High Court for proper sentences, the Court 
HELD: (I) The additional sentence of imprisonment on the third appel-
C 
lant for the same offence is illegal. 
But in sentencing the 
second 
and 
the 
third appellants to pay a fine only for the oficnce under sec. 18(c); the provi-
sions of sec. 27 (a) (ii) which make a sentence of imprisonment compulsory 
has been overlooked. [612B] 
(2) Sec. 27(a) (ii) of the Act makes a sentence of imprisonment 
of not 
less than one year compulsory for an offence under s. lS(c) in addition to 
D 
fine unless for special reasons a sentence of imprisonment for a lesser period 
was warranted. Of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.