Himachal Pradesh High Court | Stocking Medicines Without Licence Amounts to ‘Offer for Sale’ Under Section 18(a) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Conviction Under Section 27(b)(ii) Upheld
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla, upheld the conviction of an accused found in possession of allopathic medicines without a valid licence. The Court determined that placing the medicines on the racks of a clinic constituted an “offer for sale” within the meaning of Section 18(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and that such conduct attracted the penalty under Section 27(b)(ii). It further noted that the volume and nature of the stock could not be explained as being for personal use. The revision petition was therefore dismissed and the sentence imposed by the lower courts was affirmed
The case arose from an inspection conducted on 15.06.2001 by Navneet Marwaha, Drugs Inspector for Kangra, at the premises of M/s Maanav Health Clinic, Bhagsu Road, Macleodganj. The petitioner, Sanjay K. Maanav, was present during the inspection. The Inspector found a variety of allopathic medicines displayed on the racks of the clinic. When asked to produce a drug licence or a certificate of a registered medical practitioner, the petitioner could not provide any such document. Instead, he produced photocopies of certificates from Akhil Bhartiya Ayurvedic Vidyapeeth, Agra, and N.E.H.M. The Inspector associated independent witnesses, seized the medicines, sealed them in a carton, and obtained sanction for prosecution. Verification from the Registrar, Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicines, confirmed that the petitioner was not authorised to practise in homoeopathy or any other system of medicine, and that electropathy/electro-homoeopathy was not recognised.
A complaint was filed, and the petitioner was charged under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The prosecution examined five witnesses, including independent witnesses and the Drugs Inspector. The petitioner, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied keeping allopathic medicines for sale, stating that he had kept only electropathy medicines and that false evidence was presented against him. He produced no evidence in defence.
The Trial Court found that the medicines were kept in the clinic and inferred that these were meant for sale. The petitioner’s certificates were found invalid, and he was convicted under Section 27(b)(ii), sentenced to one month’s simple imprisonment and fined ₹5,000, with a default sentence of fifteen days. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Sessions Judge on appeal.
In revision, the petitioner argued that the prosecution had failed to prove that the drugs were intended for sale, an essential requirement under Section 27(b)(ii). He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohammad Shabir v. State of Maharashtra (1979). Alternatively, he sought reduction of sentence, citing the long lapse of time since the incident. The State contended that the presence of a substantial stock of medicines on the racks of the clinic justified the inference of an offer for sale, and urged that no leniency be shown.
The Court observed: “Navneet Marwaha (PW5) inspected the premises of M/s Maanav Health Clinic and found that the accused had displayed a variety of allopathic drugs for sale. The accused could not produce any licence or certificate of a registered Medical Practitioner.”
It recorded: “The accused produced certificates of Akhil Bhartiya Ayurvedic Vidyapeeth, Agra, and N.E.H.M. However, these were not recognised by the State Council of Homoeopathy/State Government as well as the Central Council of Homoeopathy. Electropathy/Electro-Homoeopathy was not recognised.”
The Court stated: “The complainant filed the present complaint against the accused after receiving the prosecution sanction. The learned Trial Court held that the fact that the medicines were kept in the clinic can lead to an inference that these were meant for sale. The accused was convicted under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act.”
It noted: “The learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the accused was found in possession of allopathic medicines. The fact that these were kept in the clinic justified the inference that these were stocked/exhibited for sale.”
On revisional jurisdiction, the Court recorded: “The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise jurisdiction like the appellate court, and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow.”
The Court further observed: “The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses, and it is not legally permissible.”
It held: “The accused was found in possession of a huge quantity of allopathic medicines. These were kept on the racks of the clinic. Therefore, the inference that they were meant for sale is justified.”
The judgment recorded: “Thus, there is no infirmity in the judgments and order passed by learned Courts below convicting the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act.”
“The plea on behalf of the accused to reduce it cannot be accepted because of the lapse of time since the incident. The Court has to impose a deterrent sentence to dissuade people from playing with the lives of others by stocking the allopathic drugs for sale. Therefore, there is no justification for the reduction of the sentence.”
“There is no reason to interfere with the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below. Hence, the present revision fails, and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karanveer Singh Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General
Case Title: Sanjay K. Maanav v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:29661
Case Number: Cr. Revision No. 218 of 2012
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
