# 219 ISHW AR SINGH BINDRA & ORS v. THE STATE OF U.P

- **Citation:** [1969] 1 S.C.R. 219
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-05-02
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatullah, C. A. Vaidialingam, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/219-ishw-ar-singh-bindra-ors-v-the-state-of-u-p-4382
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Drugs Act, 1940 s. 3(b) (i)-Definition of 'drug'-Scope of-Medi·
cines and substances used or prepared for use in accordance with Ayur ...
vedic or Unanl systen1s-When excluded.
The Inspector of Drugs, Agra Region, filed a complaint in July 1963 be,
fore a Magistrate at Mathura alleging a preparation called anti-pblogistic
plaster was manufactured and soid by a firm of which the first two
appellants wero partners and the third appellant was the Manager; the
label on the plaster showed the constituents to be three drugs which are
to be found in pharmacopoeias prescribed under the Drugs Act,
1940
but did not bear a maimfacturing licence number and other particulars
required to be given under r. 96 of the Drug Rules, 1945. As the drug
fell within the mischief of s. 17(e) of the Act, it must he deemed to
be 'misbranded'. Moreover the label of the plaster showed that it was
'a Unani preparation which was apparently a false and misleading claim.
Accordingly, it was alleged that offences bad been committed under
s. 18(a)(ii) read with ss. 27(a) and (b) of the Act for selling a misbranded drug as per s. 17(f) and s. 17(e) respectively of the Act and
under s. 18(b) read with s. 27(b) of the Act for selling the same drug
which bad been manufactured without a licence required for the purpose
under the Act.
The appellants filed a petition under s. 561A of the Criminal Procedure Olde in the High Court in March 1964 and claimed int.r alia
that the plaster was not a drug as defined in the Act and praying that
the entire proceedings pursuant to the complaint be quashed. It was
contended that in the definition of a drug In s. 3 (b )(i) of the Act in
the expression "other than medicines and substances exclusively used or
prepared for use in accordance with the Ayurvedic or Unani Systems
of medicine" the adverb "exclusively" governed the word "use" only and
did not govern the words "prepared fOr use".
The High Court was of
the view that the intention of the legislature appeared to be to exclude
from the definition of dntg such medicines and substances which were
used exclusively in accordance with the A)rurvedic or Unani system of
medicine or which were prepared for use exclusively in accordance with
the aforesaid system; but it declined to go into the disputed questions
of fact as to whether the plasters in question fell within the exception
as this was required to be determined on expert evidence
On appeal lo this Court by certificate,
HELD : dismissing the appeal :
The expression "substances" in the definition of drug contained in
s. 3 (b) means
something other than
"medicines". The word
"and"
used in the definition of drug in s. 3 (b )( i) between "medicines" and
"substances" is to be read disjunctively. [225 F-G]
The scheme of cl. (i) of s. 3(b) is to take in all •medicines or sub·
st~11c~s with \h~ ('XCeption of such m~~ici11cs or subst~nces whicb
i1f~
220
SUPREME COURT RFPORTS
(1969] J S.C.R.
exclusively used or preporcd for u>c ia accordance with the AyurVcdic
A -
or Unani system of medicines.
The exception made in the ca~c of the
latter cJ;iss of medicines or suhstances \\'as essentially meant to cover
only such medicines or substances \Vhich y,·cre used in the Ayurvedic or
Unani system or \Vere prepared for use in accordance with those systems.
[226 A.:.....Bl
Medicines or_ sub~tanccs have to be taken as a who1e and in the pre~
sent cases it would h.wc to be decided by the trial court whether
the
B
plasters in question arc mc<llcines ''·hich arc exclusively uo::cd or
v.·hich
have been prepared for use cxcJusivcly in
accordance with the Ayurvedic or Gnani system of medicine.
The High Court was ris:ht in its
view that the adverb "excl11sivcly" must he taken to
govern the
words
"used" as \&.'ell as "prepared for use"; but each individual in~edicnt or
component· of the prepJration in question will not be the decisive or
detCTinining factor and what the court will have to decide after recording
such evidence as mav be produced will be wheth

## Text

B
c
D
E
F
G
H
. 219
ISHW AR SINGH BINDRA & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF U.P.
May 2, 1968
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND
A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Drugs Act, 1940 s. 3(b) (i)-Definition of 'drug'-Scope of-Medi·
cines and substances used or prepared for use in accordance with Ayur ...
vedic or Unanl systen1s-When excluded.
The Inspector of Drugs, Agra Region, filed a complaint in July 1963 be,
fore a Magistrate at Mathura alleging a preparation called anti-pblogistic
plaster was manufactured and soid by a firm of which the first two
appellants wero partners and the third appellant was the Manager; the
label on the plaster showed the constituents to be three drugs which are
to be found in pharmacopoeias prescribed under the Drugs Act,
1940
but did not bear a maimfacturing licence number and other particulars
required to be given under r. 96 of the Drug Rules, 1945. As the drug
fell within the mischief of s. 17(e) of the Act, it must he deemed to
be 'misbranded'. Moreover the label of the plaster showed that it was
'a Unani preparation which was apparently a false and misleading claim.
Accordingly, it was alleged that offences bad been committed under
s. 18(a)(ii) read with ss. 27(a) and (b) of the Act for selling a misbranded drug as per s. 17(f) and s. 17(e) respectively of the Act and
under s. 18(b) read with s. 27(b) of the Act for selling the same drug
which bad been manufactured without a licence required for the purpose
under the Act.
The appellants filed a petition under s. 561A of the Criminal Procedure Olde in the High Court in March 1964 and claimed int.r alia
that the plaster was not a drug as defined in the Act and praying that
the entire proceedings pursuant to the complaint be quashed. It was
contended that in the definition of a drug In s. 3 (b )(i) of the Act in
the expression "other than medicines and substances exclusively used or
prepared for use in accordance with the Ayurvedic or Unani Systems
of medicine" the adverb "exclusively" governed the word "use" only and
did not govern the words "prepared fOr use".
The High Court was of
the view that the intention of the legislature appeared to be to exclude
from the definition of dntg such medicines and substances which were
used exclusively in accordance with the A)rurvedic or Unani system of
medicine or which were prepared for use exclusively in accordance with
the aforesaid system; but it declined to go into the disputed questions
of fact as to whether the plasters in question fell within the exception
as this was required to be determined on expert evidence
On appeal lo this Court by certificate,
HELD : dismissing the appeal :
The expression "substances" in the definition of drug contained in
s. 3 (b) means
something other than
"medicines". The word
"and"
used in the definition of drug in s. 3 (b )( i) between "medicines" and
"substances" is to be read disjunctively. [225 F-G]
The scheme of cl. (i) of s. 3(b) is to take in all •medicines or sub·
st~11c~s with \h~ ('XCeption of such m~~ici11cs or subst~nces whicb
i1f~
220
SUPREME COURT RFPORTS
(1969] J S.C.R.
exclusively used or preporcd for u>c ia accordance with the AyurVcdic
A -
or Unani system of medicines.
The exception made in the ca~c of the
latter cJ;iss of medicines or suhstances \\'as essentially meant to cover
only such medicines or substances \Vhich y,·cre used in the Ayurvedic or
Unani system or \Vere prepared for use in accordance with those systems.
[226 A.:.....Bl
Medicines or_ sub~tanccs have to be taken as a who1e and in the pre~
sent cases it would h.wc to be decided by the trial court whether
the
B
plasters in question arc mc<llcines ''·hich arc exclusively uo::cd or
v.·hich
have been prepared for use cxcJusivcly in
accordance with the Ayurvedic or Gnani system of medicine.
The High Court was ris:ht in its
view that the adverb "excl11sivcly" must he taken to
govern the
words
"used" as \&.'ell as "prepared for use"; but each individual in~edicnt or
component· of the prepJration in question will not be the decisive or
detCTinining factor and what the court will have to decide after recording
such evidence as mav be produced will be whether the plasters sotisfy
C
the above tO't. If thev fulfil that test thev would be excluded from the
definition of dru.g os contained in s. 3(b)(i). [226 E---0)
Chimmi/a/ Jagjivmulas Sheth v. Stair of Maharashtra, (1963) Supp. I
S.C.R. 3.44; Stroud's Judicial Dicrioiuiry 3rd Ed. 135 and Maxwe!/
011
Interpretation of Statutes, I Ith Ed. referred to.
CRIMll'AL APPEi.LATE JuRISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos.
n
190 and 191 of 1965.
Appeals from the judgment and order, dated July 20, 1965
of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Mis. Cases Nos. 562
and 563 of 1964.
Bishan Narain and Harbans Singh, for the appellants.
G. N. Dikshit and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Grover, J.-Thesc are two companion aopeals by certificates
from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
dismissing two peti•ions under s. 56!A of the Criminal Procedure
Code. in which the sole question raised rela•ed to the true and
correct interpretation of s. 3(b)(i) of the Drugs Act 1940. as
it stood before the enforcement of the Drugs (Amendment) Act
1962 (Act XXI of 1962) and the Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Act 1964 (Act XIIT of 1964).
As the po;nt involved is common to both the appeals .the
facts in Cr. Appeal No. 190 of 1965 may be shortly stated. The
first two appellants arc the partners and the third appellant is
the manager of Bindra's Chemical Corporation which carries on
the manufacture of medicines and substances in accordance with
the tlyurvedic and Unani systems of medicines at Delhi, Shahdara.
The Inspector of Drugs, Agra Region, filed a complaint
dated July 2, 1963 in the court of Magis•rate, First Class.
at
Mathura alleging inrer alia that on September 20, 1962 when
he was carryi°ng out the inspection of th.e shop of Mis Frontier
Gupta Medical Stores. Mathura. he came across a preparation
E
F
G
"
A
B
c
•
D
E
F
G
H
I. s. BJNDRA I', STATE OF U.P. (Grover, !.)
221
called Antiphlogistic Plaster manufactured by the aforesaid Corporation. On examining the label it was discovered that although
the names of three drugs i.e. Glycerine, Kaolin and Boric Acid
which are to be found in Pharmacepoeias prescribed under the
Act were mentioned as constituents of the plaster, the label did
not bear manufacturing Licence Number and other particulars
with which a drug was required to be labelled in accordance
with Rule-96 of the Drug Rules 1945. According to the Inspector this drug fell within the mischief of s. 17 ( e) of the Act and
was to be deemed to be misbranded as it had not been labelled
in the prescribed manner. Moreover the label of the plaster in
question showed that it was a Unani preparation which
was
apparently a false and misleading claim. ·A sample was sent to
the Government Analyst who gave a certificate dated October 25,
1962 to the effect that it contained Glycerine, Kaolin and Boric
Acid and that Glycerine and Boric Acid were pharmacopoeal
drugs which were not exclusively Ayurvedic or Unani medicines.
According to the Inspector, the Antiphlogistic Plaster was a misbranded drug as per s. 17 ( e) & ( f) of the Act. It was alleged that
offences had been committed under s. 18 (a) (ii) read with ss. 27
(a) and (b) of the Act for selling Antiphlogistic Plaster, a drug
"misbranded" as per s. 17(f) ands. 17(e) respectively of the Act
and under s. 18(b) read withs. 27(b) of the Act for selling the
same drug which had been manufactured without a licence required for the purpose under the Act, to M/s Frontier Gupta
Medical Stores, Mathura.
On March 24, 1964 the appellants filed a petition
under
s. 561A of the Code in the High Court raising a number of points
including the question of the jurisdiction of the Court at Mathura
to entertain the complaint as also that the Antiphlogistic Plaster
was not a drug as defined in the Aet and praying that the entire
proceedings pursuant to the complaint be quashed. In the affidavit accompanying the petition it was stated that the ingredients
used in the prepara•ion of Bindra's Antiphlogistic Plaster were
in accordance with the Unani system of medicine. These ingredients were (i) Glycerine, (ii) Kaolin i.e.
Gule Armani or
Chikaimati, (iii) Bora i.e. Boric, (iv) Oil of Winter green i.e.
Java, (v) Oil of Eucalyptus, and Safeda. It was asserted that all
the six components were medicines recognised under the Unani
system and merely because one of the components was used in
the Allopathic system also the medicine would not become a drug
when the whole preparation itself was an Ayurvedic medicine.
Reference was made to certain books like Ramooz-Ul-Taba,
Kitabul Davaiva and Kaniz-Ul-Taba which were
well
known
books of the Unani svstem of medicine in wh;ch Glycerine and
Boric were recognised as medicines used in that sys•em.
The
other componentS of the plaster were, it is stated, of Unani origin
and frequently used for preparations in accordance with Ayurve-
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] I S.CR.
die and Unani system.
The Inspector of Drugs filed a counter
affidavit in which it was pointed out that Glycerine, Kaolin and
Boric Acid were drugs which were to be found in
tbe British
Pharmaceutical Codex 1958.
The "monographs" of Glycerine.
heavy Kaolin. light Kaolin and Boric Acid containing the
formulae according to which these drugs were prepared were given.
It was also alleged that Bindra's Antiphlogistic Plaster had been
prepared in accordance with the Allopathic system of medicine
since its composition resulted in a preparation known as Kaolin
Poultice given at page 359 of the British Pharmaceutical Codex
1958.
Glycerine, Boric Acid, Kaolin and oil of winter green
Methyl Salicylate were the main components of Bindra's Antiphlogistic Plaster and those were medicines which were not exclusively
used in accordance with either the Ayurvedic or the Unani syslem
of medicine.
In the further affidavit filed by the appellants it
was maintained that Glvcerine and Kaolin and Boric Acid were
being used in the Unani system in the same way as many other
things such as Honey. Rosewater. Boric or Sohaga, Sulphur i.e.
Gandhak, Arsenic i.e .. Sankhia, Alum i.e. Phtkari which were
mentioned in the British Pharmaceutical Codes but it did
not
follow that they could not be used in a preparation made according to the Ayurvcdic system.
It was pointed out that the medicine known as Kaolin Poultice was entirely different from Bindra's
Antiphlogistic Plaster.
The definition of "drug" contained ins. 3(b) is in the following terms :-
"(i) all medicines for internal
or external
use of
human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or (in the diagnosis, treatment), mitigation or prevention of
disease in
human beings -or animals other than medicines
and substances exclusively
used or
prepared
for use in accordance with Avurvedic or Unani
systems of medicine.
-
(ii) such substances (other than food)
intended
to affect the structure or any function of the
human body or intended to be used for the destruction of vermin or
insects
which
cause
disease in human bein~s or animals, as
may
specified from time to time by the Central G-ovcrnment by notification in the Official Gazette."
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
The contention of the appellants before the High Court was that
in the ]a st part of cl. ( i) the adverb "exclusively" governed the
n
word "used" only and did not govern the words "prepared for
use".
The other argument raised was that the legislature
intended to except from the definition of drug medicines and S\lb-
-·
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
i. s. ll!NDRA V, STATE OF U.i'. (Grover, J.)
223
stances which were common to Ayurvedic or Unani system. of
medicine and other systems.
The High Court was of the view
that the intention of the legislature appeared to be to exclude
from the definition of drug such medicines and substances which
were used exclusively in accordance with the Ayurvedic or U_nam
system of medicine or which were prepared for use exclusively
in accordance with the aforesaid system. In other words it was
held that the adverb "exclusively" governed "use" as well
as
"prepared for use". The High Court declined to go into the disputed questions of fact as to whether Bindra's Antiphlogistic
plaster fell within the exception and was not a drug and observed
that the question as to whether a medicine or a substance was
used exclusively or prepared for use exclusively in accordance
with the Ayurdcvic or Unani system of medicine was a question
of fact, the decision of which would hinge inter alia on expert
evidence.
It has been urged by Mr. Bishan Narain that on a true interpretation of the words embodying the exception a medicine which
has been prepared for use in accordance with the Ayurvedic or
Unani system would fall within the exception notwithstanding the
,use of certain medicines like Glycerine, Boric Acid etc. w.hich
are used in the Allopathic system as also in the Ayurvedic or
Unani systems.
By way of il'lustration, in the Unani system fat
was being used in pr.eparation of certain medicines and instead
of fat being used now Glycerine is being used. This, according
to Mr. Bishan Narain, will not take the entire preparation of the
Antiphlogistic Plaster as such outside the scope of the exception
in the definition of drug in the Act. An attempt has, also been
made to show, by reference to certain provisions of the Act, t]).at
the Government Analyst to whom the sample of the ?,laster was
sent, was not qualified and indeed could not be qualified to ·express any opinion about medicines used or prepared for use in
accordance with the Ayurvedic and Unani systems.
The position taken up on behalf of the State is that in fact
and substance all the drugs and medicines mentioned in the
Bri?sh Phai;mic~utical .Code~ ~ave been employed in the prepa·
ration of Bmdra s. Antiphlo,g1stic Pla~ter .. It is strenuously con·
tended 0at ~y a s1!11ple de':'ice of callmg .1t a Unani or Ayurvedic
preparation m which adnuttedly Glycenne Kaolin Boric Acid
etc. have been used, which find place in B;itish Pharmaceutical
Codex and are clearly drugs, the appellants carmot escape the
consequences of infringement of the provisions of the Act.
At this S!<I;ge it would be useful to refer to some of the important proVIsions of ~e ~ct.. It was enacted to regulate the
~port, manufactur~,, ~stnbution and sale of drugs. The defimtion of drug as give~ m s. 3 (b) was made as wide as it could
be and the only exception related to the medicines and substances
224
SUPREME COURT R£PORTS
[1969] 1 s.c.R..
used or prepared for use exclusively in the Ayurvedic or Unani
A
system.
Chapter IV contains provisions relating to manufacture, sale
and distribution of drugs.
Section 16 says,
the
express.on
"standard quality" when applied to a drug means that the drug
complies with the standard set out in the Schedule. Section
17
relates to misbranded drugs.
Section 18 prohibi:s manufacture
B
and sale of sub-standard drugs includ.ng misbranded drugs. Sections 20 & 21 provide for the appoin:ment of Government Analysts
and Inspectors, the procedure to be followed by them and the
reports of Government Analysts. Section 27 contains the penalty
for manufacture, sale etc. of drugs in contravention of Chapter
IV; the punishments provided being quite severe.
c
•
A nwnber of amendments were made by Act Xlll of 1964
.,,
some of which may be noticed.
These are strictly not relevant
for our purposes except for understanding the legislation on the
subject.
In cl. (i) the words "other than medicines and substances exclusively used or prepared for use in accordance with
the Ayurvedic or Unani system of medicine" were deleted. Before
D
clal!se ( aa) the following clause was inserted :
(a) "Ayurvedic (including Siddha) or Unani drug"
includes all medicines intended for internal or external
use for or in the diagnosis,
treatment mitigation or
prevention of disease in hwnan beings, mentioned in,
and processed and manufactured exclusively in accordance with the formulae described in, the authoritative
books of Ayurvedic (including Siddha)
and
Unani
Tibb) system of medicine,
specified
in
the First
Schedule."
Chapter IV-A was added containing provisions relating to Ayurvedic including Siddha and Unani drugs. According to s. 33(e)
in that Chapter, from such date, as may be fixed by the State
Government by notification in the official gazette no person shall
himself or by any other person on his behalf sell or stock or
exhibit for s:i.lc, or distribute, any Ayurvedic (including Siddha)
or Unani drug other than that manufactured by a manufacturer
licensed under this Chapter.
Penalties w~rc provided
for the
infringement of the provisions contained in the Chapter.
There can be no difficulty now after the amendments made
by Act XIll of 1964 in the matter of medicines and substances
exclusively used or prepared for use in accordance with the Ayurvcdic or Unani system of medicine provided they arc processed
and manufactured according to the fom1ulae described in
the
authoritative books as specified in the First Scb~dulc. The difficulty, however, remains with regard
to the
true import of the
E
F
G
H
A
B
E
.F
I. s. BINDRA V, STATE OF U.P. (Grover, .T.)
225
exception in the definition of "drug" in the Act.
In Chimanlal
Jagjivandas Sheth v. State of Maharashira( 1 ) the appellant had
been prosecuted for an offence under s. 18 of the Act inter alia
for manufacturing drugs which were of
sub-standard quality.
Certain samples of absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages and
guaze which he had manufactured were seized and he had not
only stored them but he was also passing them off as though they
were manufactured by a furn of repute at Secunderabad. The
Government Analyst had reported that only the lint was of standard quality and the other articles were not of standard quality.
He had been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months ati.d to pay a fine of Rs. 100 under
each count by the High Court on appeal against acquittal. After
setting out the definition of drug as given in s. 3 (b) this Court
observed:
"The said definition of 'drug' is
comprehen_sive
enough to take in not only !Ilf'.,dicines but also substances
intended fo be used for or in the treatment of diseases
of human beings or animals.
This artificial definition
introduces a distinction between medicines and
substances which are not medicines strictly so called. The
expression 'substances', therefore, must be something
other than medicines but which are used for treatment."
The dict;ionary meaning of the words "medicines and substances"
may be noticed.
In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
the
appropriate meaning of "medicine" is "medicament
especially
one taken internally-medicament generally".
The meaning of
"substance" relevant for our purposes is "any particular kind of
corporeal matter-a species of matter of a definite chemical composition-a piece or a mass of particular kind of matter-a body
of a specified composition or texture."
Now if the expression "substances" is to be. taken to mean
something other than "medicine" as has been held _in our previous
decision it becomes difficult to understand how the word "and"
as used in the definition of drug in s. 3 (b) ( i) between "medicines"
and "substances" could have been intended to have been used
conjunctively. It would be much more appropriate in the con-
·G
text to read it disjunctively.
In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 3rd
Ed. it is stated at page 135 that "and" has generally a cumulative sense, requiring the fulfilment of all the conditions that it
joins together, and herein it is the antithesis of "or". Sometimes,
however, even in such a connection, it is, by force of a context,
read as "or". Similarly in MaxweII on Interpretation of Statutes.
H
11th Ed., it has been accepted that "to carry out the intention of
the legislature it is occasionally found necessary to read the
conjunctions 'or' and 'and' one for the other".
(I) [1963] Supp, l S.C.R. 344.
IO Sup. C. I.168-16
226
St;l'RFME COURT REPORTS
[1969] i SCR
The scheme of cl. (i) of s. 3(b) apparently is to take in all
medicines or substances with the exception of such mcdicin~s or
substances which arc r~xclusively used or prepared for use
in
accordance with the Ayurvedic or Unani system of medicine. The
exception made in the case of latter class of medicines or substances was csscnti;11ly meant to cover only such medicines or
substances which were used in the Ayurvcdic or Unani system or
were prepared for use in accordance with those systems. In other
words all medicines or substances had. under s. J 6 of the Act, to
comply with the standard sci out in the
Schedule. as it
stood
before the amendment made by Act
XIII of
1964.
In the
Schedule classes of drugs and the standard which was lo be c:>mplied with were set out with reference mostly to the
standards
maintained at the National lnslitutc
for
Medical
Research.
London and the standards of identity. purity and str:~ngth specified !n the (current edition for the time being of the British Pharmacopoeia) or the Brilish Pharmaceutical Codex 0r any other
prescribed pharmacopoeia. or adopted by the Permanent C<>n1mission on Biological Standardisation of the (World Health Orμanisation).
Only one category consist in;; of medicines and substances used or prepared for use exclusively in accnrdanc!.: wi1Ji
the Ayurvcdic or llnani system o[ medicine was taken out of the
definition of drug bcforn the amendments made by Act XIII or
1964. 1liat Act, as mentioned before, deleted the exception.
A
B
c
D
Jn our view mcdicin.zs or substances have to be taken as a
whole and in the present cases it will have to be decided by the
F.
trial magistrate whether Bindra·s
Antiphlogistic
Plaster
and
Bindra's Yabroo.i Plaster (Hclladona Plaster) arc medicines wi1ich
are exclusively used or which have been prepared for
use -:xclusively in accordance with the Ayurvcdic or Unani system or
medicine.
As regards the adverb "exclmivcly" we concur in the
view of the Hi.~h Court tha1 it must be taken 10 govern the words
F
"used'' as well as "prepared for use": but in our opinion each
individual ingredient or component of the preparation in c;ucstion will not be the decisive or determinin)! factor and wh;1t the
court will have to decide aflcr recording such evidence as may
be produced will be whether the aforesaid medicines (they can
hardly be called sub,tanccs) were exclusively used or were prer;1rcd for use .exclusivch in accordance with the Avurvcdic or
G
IJnani system. If they fulfil that test they would be ex~ludcd from
the definition of druc as contained in s. 3(b)(i).
With the,;e
obscrv;1tions. howevei·: the appeals arc dismissed.
R.KP.S.