Doctor stocking small amounts of medicines without disclosing source doesn’t endanger public: Supreme Court
New Delhi, February 17
Holding that a doctor stocking small amounts of medicines without disclosing the source does not endanger the public, the Supreme Court has set aside a six-month jail term imposed on him for possession of a small quantity of unlicensed medicines and instead slapped a fine of Rs 1 lakh fine on him.“We are of the considered view that 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. Therefore, we find it fit to modify the impugned judgment, set aside the sentence of imprisonment as awarded, and instead thereof, impose a fine of Rs 1,00,000 on the Appellant,” a Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol said in its February 14 order.
Urging the court to modify the sentence of imprisonment to that of a fine, the appellant had submitted that being a doctor, he had no intention to contravene the law and undertake any action which may be scuttling the statutory provisions.
Dr Palani was convicted under Section 18A read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 which related to the disclosure and non-disclosure respectively of the name of the manufacturer. The former stipulated a requirement for every person who is not a manufacturer or agent of distribution to disclose the name of the person from whom he has acquired such drug or cosmetic. The latter prescribed a punishment for violation of the aforesaid requirement to the tune of imprisonment up to a year or with a fine not less than Rs 20,000, or with both.
“We find that the quantities of the 29 kinds of medicines recovered from the clinic run by the Appellant, were of small quantity. In such a situation, non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer/person from whom the said medicines were acquired, cannot be said to be endangering public interest (which obviously, is the primary object of the prohibition in law) by allowing the circulation of such substances unauthorisedly, the top court noted.
