The Supreme Court upheld a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 but overturned a prison sentence handed to a doctor in a case linked to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Act).
The Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “imposing a sentence of imprisonment would be unjustified, particularly when the intent to sell/distribute under Section 18© of the Act has been held unproven”
This appeal involved a ruling from the High Court that upheld the verdict of the Additional District & Sessions Judge. The lower Appellate Court adjusted the decision made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by overturning the appellant’s conviction under specific sections of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Act), while affirming the conviction under other sections.
The Bench observed that In the case of S. Athilakshmi v. State Rep. by The Drug Inspector, a doctor was acquitted of possessing a small quantity of drugs because it did not amount to selling medicines over the counter. The Bench highlighted that the only remaining issue was the failure to disclose the manufacturer’s name. Considering the small quantity of medicines involved, the non-disclosure was deemed not to endanger public interest.
Therefore, the Court amended the ruling, revoked the prison sentence, and granted the Appeal.
CASE NAME: PALANI V. THE TAMIL NADU STATE (@Petition for Special Leave Appeal (Crl.) No.256 OF 2022)‘
Name: Suhani Choudhary, Course: BA LL.B, College: Lloyd School of Law, Intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments