SK.AMIR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 09-01-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

84 
SK.AMIR 
V. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
January 9, 1974. 
[M. H. BEG ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.j 
Drugs and Cosmetics Act (23 of 1940)-Ss. 18 and 27-'Stockedfor sale' 1neaning 
a11A .scope of. 
Immediately after he had obtained delivery of a parcel from the railway authori· 
tie1, the appellant was apprehended by a railway constable. The parcel was found 
to contain 95,000 capsules of a sedative agent commonly used for intoxication,, 
He was charged with the offence of stocking foi sale a misbranded drug without a 
licence under s. l8(a) (ii) and s.J8(c) read withs. 27(a) (ii) and 27(b) of the Dra115 
and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the trial Court convicted him. The District Judge OJ) 
appeal, acquitted the appellant. The High Court on further appeal sentenced the 
appellant to a minimum sentence of one year's imprisonment prescribed by the 
Act. 
Disnti&sing the appeal to tiiis Court, 
HELD: Sections l8(a), l8(c) and 27(a) do not use the word ~·stock" in any 
technical sense. The plain meaning of the word "stock" in these provisions of the 
Act i! "to keep" and the injunction of the law means no more than this that no per!on 
shall keep for sate a misbranded drug or a drug in respect of which a valid licence 
is not held. It is not necessary that the drug should be 'stored' in a place in order 
that it can be said to have been "stocked" for sale. If any one keeps or carries a 
drug on his person in contravention of the terms of the Act and it is proved that the 
drug is kept or carried for sale, the act must fall within the mischief of the law. What 
is "intended for sale" can as much be stocked on one's perSon as in a shop or in a 
godown. "Keeping" for sale is of the essence of the matter, not tho mode and the 
manner of keeping. To keep for sale is to stock f<;>r sale. [86C] 
In the instant case a large quantity of capsules found in the possessioJt of the 
appellant leaves no doubt that be had stocked or kept the drug for sale. 
Dlraram Deo Gupta v. State. A. I. R. (1958) All. 865, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 149of197. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 
18th/20th July, 1970 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench at 
Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1968. 
U. P. Singh and Santokh Singh, for the appellant. 
S. B. Wad and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, J. On March 19, 1966 the appellant was appre-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
hended by a Railway constable at the gate of the Malkapur railway 
G 
station immediately after he had obtained the delivery of a parcel. 
The p~rcel was found to contain 95,000 capsules of Seco Barbital 
Sodium which is a sedative agent and is commonly used for intoxication. 
The intoxicant is popularly called "Lal Pari". 
The appellant was tried by the learned Judidal Magistrate, First 
Class, Malkapur for offences under sections 18(a)(ii) and 18(c) read 
with sections 27(a) (ii) and 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 23 
H 
of 1940, on the charge that he had stocked for sale a misbranded drug 
and that he had no licence for stocking the drug for sale. The appellant 
admitted that he was carrying the parcel at the time of his arrest but his 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
s. K. AMIR v. MAHARASHTRA (Chandrachud, J.) 
85 
defence was that he took delivery of the parcel on behalf of one Mohamad 
Jamadar who had represented to him that the parcel contained a 
'science apparatus' meant for a school. The Magistrate rejected this 
defence as untrue, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to pay a 
fine of Rs. 1200. 
In appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana acquitted the 
appellant on the view that though the facts raised a suspicion that the 
apl:'ellant or some other person on whose behalf the appellant had taken 
delivery of the parcel may have had the object of selling the capsules, 
the mere fact that the appellant was carrying the parcel would not 
justify the inference that the drug was stocked for sale. 
That decision was set aside in appeal by the High Court of Bombay 
(Nagpur Bench) which held that the prosecution had proved conclu-
sively that the accuse had stocked the drug for sale. The High Court 
sentenced the appellant to the minimum sentence of one year's impri-
sonment, prescribed by the Act. This appeal by special leave is dire-
cted against the judgment of the High Court. 
Under section 3(b) (i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, 'drug' 
includes "all med

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