SWANTRAJ & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 05-02-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
287 
SWANTRAJ & ORS. 
\ 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
February 5, 1974 
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.) 
. 
Drugs a11d Cosmetics Act, (23 of !940), S. IS(IJ(c)-'Stocked for sale', if 
uicludes. te1nporary storage for sale not at the place of storage but elsewhere-
Whe!her fonns for lic~nces provided are intlexible or suitable licences with 
nrodificat101is can be. issuel/. 
Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, provides that no 
p~rs~n -shall manufacture for sale, or sell, or stQck or exhibit. for sale .or 
distribute any drug except under a Jicence ·and s. 27(b) provides for punish-
. ment for its contravention. 
The appeJJant was a wholesale dealer and distributor of drugs and bad 
_t~e _necessary licences prescribed under· the ·Act. It- bad also the necessary 
licences autbo!ising i~ ·to sell, stock oi exhibit for sale or distribute by whole-
sale through its motor van. The appellant booked certain drugs by tony but 
as the motor van was delayed, the drugs were reteasCd from the Jorry and 
temporarily kept in the godown of a local drugs dealer. 
On the questiOns, ( 1) whether the licence which permitted stocking· and 
selling in a specified vehicle, ·covered the brief interval of storage in the 
god own before loadirig on to the appeilanfs van, and ( 2) whether the· act 
of the appellant in temporarily storing drugs, not for immediate sale there, 
but for ultimate sale in various parts of the State,· is contrary to s. 18(c) 
and punish~ble under s. 27(b), 
HEID: 
( l) (a) A licence in_ terms for a vehicle cannot do duty for one 
to keep druJS in a fixed place·. 
Assuming that none of the· prescribed forms 
provide for an itinerant wholesale distributor and that it would ·be impossible 
to furnish the very ma.ny possible places where for short intervals drugs may 
have to be stored awaiting the arrival of the· van, an argumentunJ ab. incon-
"Veniend cannot be a defence; if the law requires a 'licence for a- place and 
drup are lept ·in such a place without the licence, even as a stop-gap arrange-
ment. The paramount purpose of regulation through licensing is, to set in 
motion vigilant medical watch over the proper protection of drugs and medi .. 
cines. verification of the expiry of the time of their efficacy, and t~.e ~jection 
of spuriou.11· products. If god.owns, temporary stores etc .• can be unhcensed, 
1heY can become foci of -dubious, deceptive and harmful drugs. Therefore, 
levery place Wh~re stornge is made must be licensed. 
[290 D-F; 292 A-OJ -
(b) The rules made under the Act, while they visualise wholesale distrl-
"bution licences, the. forms h~ve ·not provided fOr licences for . mobile vans or 
distn"bution depots so essential for a wholesale <futribution system. The 
. licence aivcn to the appellants' vehicle is an improvised innovation without 
the. law. There is no express power to thus modify· the forms or innovate 
·according to need. But such an authority to grant su~table Hcen11es under 
rr. 61 and '62· (proviso), including the wayside depots or 'emergency' stores, 
coUld be implied. The appellant should therefore have applied fOr and 
obtain~ the n'ecessary Jiccnc~ for the temporary stor~ge. (291 C-HJ 
(LIJw Lexicon of British- India ·com~iltd· and edited by Ramanati1a1 Ai}'ar, 
sale there' or. ~stocked for sale elsewhere later'. TDe Central Governmen.t 
should'.howevtr clarify the rules and nrovide for al'?nropriate· forms .. The first 
interpretation permits abuse through loophole~,. while the .seCQDd llJ<!llens ~P 
'but" caSts ·on the dealer the burden. of. obta1n1ng more licences. Since nsk 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
( ft974 l 3 S.C.It. 
of life and health is avoided by the latter interpretation, it must be held that 
th~ storage, even though for short spelJs "and on ad hoc basis 
1 and without 
intent to sell at that place but as part of the sales business, comes within stocking 
for sale in s. IS(c) dOd r. 62. 
[293 C-EJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuR1smcTioN : Criminal Appeal No. 177 
of 1970. 
From the judgment and order dated the 7th August 1969 of the 
Bombay High Court in 
(Nagpur Bench) at Nagpur in Criminal 
Appeal No. 25 of 1968. 
S. C. Manchanda and 0. P. Verma for the appellant. 
M. C. Bharldare and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of .the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J .-Every legislation is a social document and judi< 
cial construction seeks to decipher the statutory mission, language 
permitting, taking the

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