Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – ss.3(f), 18(a)(vi), 27(d) – Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 – rr.65(5)(1)(b), 70, Form 20B, 25, 26 – Manufacture and sale of drugs – Condition of licences – Meaning of term “manufacture” – Appellant no. 1, company engaged in the manufacture and sale of industrial and medical gases in India – Complaint lodged by Drugs Inspector that appellant no. 1 sold Nitrous Oxide I.P. to the accused No.3 firm which did not have license for sale and was in contravention of s.18(a)(vi) read with r.65(5)(1)(b) of the Rules, punishable u/s.27(d) of the said Act – Trial court took the complaint on its file and issued summons to accused persons including the appellants – Appellants filed petition before the High Court praying for calling of the records on the file of the trial court and to quash the same against the appellants – High Court dismissed the petition – Correctness: Held: Both appellant no.1 and accused no.3 possessed licence under Form 25 – Submission that the licence under Form 25 is subject to Form 20B and since accused no.3 did not have licence under Form 20B, sale to accused no.3 was in contravention of s.18(a)(vi) is totally fallacious in nature – ‘Manufacture’ includes any process or part of a process for making, altering, ornamenting, finishing, packing, labelling, breaking up or otherwise treating or adopting any drug or cosmetic with a view to its sale or distribution – Accused no.3, holding licence under Form 25, entitled to sell and distribute the product received from appellant no.1 after altering, breaking it up and packing it in smaller containers – Even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at its face value, no case made out for offence punishable u/s. 18(a)(vi) rw s.27(d) – Furthermore, in the order passed by the Magistrate while issuing the process, except recording the submissions of the complainant, no reasons recorded for issuing the process against accused persons – Order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto – No application of mind even for the namesake by Magistrate while issuing process – Also, the High Court totally misdirected itself – Interpretation by High Court that since accused no.3 was given licence to manufacture, he was not authorized to purchase it from appellant no.1, is without considering the plain nature of s.3(f) and is totally unsustainable in law – Impugned judgment quashed and set aside – Summoning order also quashed and set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482. [Paras 21-33, 35, 38-41]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.