In a recent legal ruling that underscores the nuances of medical practice and regulatory compliance, the Supreme Court overturned a doctor’s sentence of imprisonment under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The case revolved around the failure of the doctor to disclose the source of medicines stocked in his clinic, an offense under Section 18(A) read with Section 28 of the Act.
The apex court, while upholding the conviction, deemed the six-month imprisonment unjust given the circumstances. The doctor, found in possession of 29 types of allopathic medicines without proper documentation for sale, maintained that the quantities were small and not intended for distribution.
Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, presiding over the bench, acknowledged the absence of imminent public harm due to the undisclosed manufacturer’s name. Citing precedent, they emphasized that the mere possession of limited quantities of drugs does not necessarily imply intent to sell.
Referencing the case of S. Athilakshmi v. State Rep. by The Drug Inspector, the court underscored the distinction between stocking medicines for personal use versus commercial purposes. Consequently, they deemed imprisonment unwarranted, opting instead to impose a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 on the appellant doctor.
The decision not only highlights the complexities surrounding pharmaceutical regulations but also underscores the judiciary’s discernment in assessing cases involving medical practitioners.
In conclusion, while the conviction was upheld, the imposition of a hefty fine in lieu of incarceration reflects a balanced approach towards enforcing drug laws without disproportionately penalizing practitioners for minor infractions.
The legal battle, encapsulated in PALANI vs. THE TAMIL NADU STATE, Criminal Appeal No. 887 / 2024, sets a precedent for future cases involving similar regulatory ambiguities in the medical field.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
