Sentence for not disclosing the name of the manufacturer set aside by SC
Last Updated on February 16, 2024 by News Desk
Background:- While an inspection was being carried out by the drug inspector it was discovered that the doctor in question had the possession of 29 types of allopathic medicines without the proper paperwork and the information regarding the same could not be further furnished
The sentence of imprisonment was imposed on the doctor for the offence under the section 18(A) and section 28 of the Drugs and cosmetics act was set aside by the SC.
The offence was pertaining to not disclosing the name of the manufacturer of the medicine.
Analysis:– Since the doctor was possessing only small quantities of the medicine, the conviction remained and the imprisonment of 6 months was converted into a fine of Rs 1 lakhs.
The bench comprised of Justices B.R Gavai and Sanjay Karol gave the judgement.
It was argued by the doctor that the medicines were not for the purpose of sale or distribution.
It was held by the SC that there was no impending danged with the possession of 29 types of medicines.
In any case, the non-disclosure of the manufacturer from which the medicine has been acquired cannot be said to be a danger to the public interest.
Case Title:- PALANI vs. THE TAMIL NADU STATE, Criminal Appeal No. 887 / 2024
Written By:- Shianjany Pradhan (@SHIANJANYPRADHAN)
