STATE OF UTTARANCHAL versus RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 843 · Decided: 10-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATEOFUTTARANCHAL 
A 
v. 
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA 
NOVEMBER 10, 2006 
[S.B.SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
Section 8 read with Section 22-Certain operations-Prohibition of-
Drugs for medicinal purposes-Use of-Bail-Grant of-Accused, an. C 
Ayurvedacharya, allegedly issued advertisements in various newspapers 
claiming that medicines used by him were prepared from herbal plants and 
by application thereof patients suffering from epilepsy could be cured-The' 
accused, in his medicine, had been using unlabelled tablets containing · 
psychotropic substances making unsuspecting patients addicted to the drugs- D 
Raids conducted in his clinic yielded 70 Kg of pure phenobarbitone-
Accused arrested on charges framed against him under Section 8 read with 
Section 22-The drugs seized from the respondent were Schedule G and H 
drugs as envisaged in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the same were used 
for "medicinal purposes"-Bail refused by Special Judge-However, High 
Court granted bail holding that the drugs in question were not listed in the E 
1st Schedule appended to the Act-Correctness of-Held: It is not in dispute 
that the drugs were used for "medicinal purposes" and that they were 
allopathic drugs listed in Schedule G and H of the Drugs and Cosmetics 
Act-Therefore, S. 37 of the 1985 Act would prima facie have no application 
in view of the exception contained in Section 8 thereof read with the Rules- F 
Hence, High Court rightly granted bail-Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic 
Substances Rules, 1985, Rr. 53, 64, 65, 66 & 67-A-Drugs and Magic 
Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954-Drugs and Cosmetics 
Act, , Schedule G and H 
Words & Phrases: 
"Medicinal purposes"-Meaning of-In the context of Section 8 of the 
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 
The respondent was an Ayurvedacharya. The respondent allegedly issued 
843 
G 
H 
844 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A advertisements in various newspapers claim!ng that medicines used by him 
were prepared from herbal plants and by application thereof patients suffering 
from epilepsy could be cured. There were allegations that the respondent, in 
his medicine, had been using unlabelled tablets containing psychotropic 
substances making unsuspecting patients addicted to the drugs. There was a 
recovery of 70 Kg of pure phenobarbitone from the premises of the respondent 
B 
The respondent was arrested on charges framed against him under 
Section 8 read with Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985. The Special Judge dismissed the application for bail 
moved by the respondent However, the High Court granted bail holding that 
C the drugs in question not being listed in the 1st Schedule appended to the 
Act, the respondent could not be said to have committed any offence under 
Section 8 read with Section 22 of the Act. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the drugs seized from 
the respondent were Schedule G and H drugs as envisaged in the Drugs and 
D Cosmetics Act and the same were used for medicinal purposes and, therefore, 
no offence was committed under the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the medicines seized from the 
E respondent's clinic come within the purview of Schedules G and Hof the Drugs 
and Cosmetics Act. It is not furthermore in dispute that the medicines do not 
find place in Schedule I appended to the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic 
Substances Rules, 1985. If the said drugs do not find place in Schedule I 
appended to the Rul~s, the provisions of Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs & 
Psychotropic Su.bstances Act, 1985 would have no application whatever. 
F Section 8 of the 1985 Act contains a prohibitory clause, violation whereof 
leads to penal offences thereunder. (854-D, E, F) 
2. In view of the fact that all the drugs being allopathic drugs mentioned 
in Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 in Schedules G and Hof the Drugs and Cosmetics 
Act and which are being indisputably used for medicinal purposes, it cannot 
G be denied that they are acknowledged to be the drugs which would come within 
the purview of description of the expression "medicinal purposes". 
1854-F,G] 
H 
3. The exceptions contained in Section 8 of the 1985 Act must be judged,;.. 
on the touchstone of: 
i 
STA TE OF UTT ARANCHAL v. RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA 
845 
(i) whether the drugs are used for medicinal purposes. 
(i

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