# Septcmher, 26. 344 SVPREJ\IE COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. CHIMANLAL JAGJIVANDAS SHETH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

- **Citation:** [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 344
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-06-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1961
- **Bench:** Jafer Imam, K. Subba Rao, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. R. MuDHOLKAR
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/septcmher-26-344-svprej-ie-court-reports-1963-supp-chimanlal-jagjivandas-sheth-2713
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Drugs-Absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages awl gauzeWhctncr drug.s-Sentence, reduction of-Drugs Act, 1940 (23
of 1940),a.s amended by Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1955, ss. 3(b), 18.
The appellant was found in possession of large quantities
of absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages and gauze which he
had manufactured. On analysis these were found to be substandard and the appellant was prosecuted under s. 18 of the
Drugs Act, 1940, for manufacturing sub-standard drugs. He
was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500J.
The appellant
contended that these articles were not drugs as defined ins. 3(b)
of the Act and that the sentence imposed was too severe.
Helll, that absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages and
gauze \vere ''drugs" within the meaning of s. 3(b) and the
appellant \.Yas rightly convicted. In the definition "drugs"
"included substances intended to be used for or in treatn1cnt of
diseases".
"Substances" was something other than "medicines"
and meant "things". The said articles were sterilized or otherwise treated to n1ake them disinfectant; they were used for
surgical dressings and \Vere essential 1naterials for treat1nent in
surgical cases. The object of the Act of maintaining high
standards of medical treatment would be defeated if the
necessary conco1nitants of medical or surgical treatment were
allowed to be diluted.
Jleld, further, that the sentence erred on the side of leniency
rather than severity and could not be reduced. It was a case
where large quantities of spurious and sub-standard drugs had
been manufactured by the appellant. He was guilty of an antisocial act of a very serious nature.

## Text

1962
Septcmher, 26.
344 SVPREJ\IE COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
CHIMANLAL JAGJIVANDAS SHETH
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(JAFER IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA
AYYANGAR and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Drugs-Absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages awl gauzeWhctncr drug.s-Sentence, reduction of-Drugs Act, 1940 (23
of 1940),a.s amended by Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1955, ss. 3(b), 18.
The appellant was found in possession of large quantities
of absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages and gauze which he
had manufactured. On analysis these were found to be substandard and the appellant was prosecuted under s. 18 of the
Drugs Act, 1940, for manufacturing sub-standard drugs. He
was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500J.
The appellant
contended that these articles were not drugs as defined ins. 3(b)
of the Act and that the sentence imposed was too severe.
Helll, that absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages and
gauze \vere ''drugs" within the meaning of s. 3(b) and the
appellant \.Yas rightly convicted. In the definition "drugs"
"included substances intended to be used for or in treatn1cnt of
diseases".
"Substances" was something other than "medicines"
and meant "things". The said articles were sterilized or otherwise treated to n1ake them disinfectant; they were used for
surgical dressings and \Vere essential 1naterials for treat1nent in
surgical cases. The object of the Act of maintaining high
standards of medical treatment would be defeated if the
necessary conco1nitants of medical or surgical treatment were
allowed to be diluted.
Jleld, further, that the sentence erred on the side of leniency
rather than severity and could not be reduced. It was a case
where large quantities of spurious and sub-standard drugs had
been manufactured by the appellant. He was guilty of an antisocial act of a very serious nature.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 107 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated June 16, 1961, of the Bombay High Court
in Cr. A. No. 21 of 1961.
I
l S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
34.5
R(1jni P(1tel, J. B. Dad;xchanji, 0. C. 111(),tlmr
and R(J,vinder N (),min, for the appellant.
H. R. Khann11, H. H. JJhebar
and R. N.
Sachthey, for the respondents.
1062. September 2G.
The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
SUBBA RAO, .J.-This appeal by special leave
against the judgment of the High- Court of Judicature
at Bombay raises the question of construction of
s.3(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940, as amended by the
Drugs (Amendment) Act,
1955, hereinafter called
the Act.
This appeal has been argued on the basis of
facts found by the High Court.
The appellant \~as
carrying on business in the name of Deepak Tradmg
Corporation at Bulakhidas Building, Vithaldas Road,
Bombay. On December 27, 1958, the Sub Inspector
of Police, accompanied by the Drug Inspector, raided
the said building and found large quantities of
absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages, gauze and
other things.
It was found that the appellant was
not only storing these goods in large quantities but
was actually manufacturing them in Bombay and
passing them off as though they were manufactured by
a firm of repute in Secunderabad. The samples of
the aforesaid articles and lint were sent to the Government Analyst, who reported that out of the samples
sent to him only the lint was of standard quality and
the other articles were not of standard quality. The
appc!lant was; prosecuted
before the Presidency
Magistrate, 16th Court, Bombay,
for an offence
under s. 1.8 of the Act, inter alia, for manufacturing
drugs which were not of standard quality. The learned
Presidency Magistrate acquitted the appellant on the
ground . that the p~osecution had failed to prove that
the ar!1cles were m the possession of the appellant.
The High Court on a resurvey of the evidence came to
a differen.t conclusion and found that the said articles
1962
Chimm1lal
Jag}ivandrb'
Sheth
,.,
State of ,\faharashtrt
Subba Rao, J.
1962
Chimanlal
Jagjii•a11das Slielh
v.
State nf .A1aharashtra
Subba Rao, J.
346 SUPREJ.\1E COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
were not only found in the possession of the appellant
but also were manufactured by him and that they
were below the standard prescribed.
On the finding,
it convicted the appellant and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and
to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under each count. Hence
the appeal.
Though an attempt was made to argue that
the said articles had not been proved to be below the
prescribed standard, it was subsequently given up.
The only question that was argued is whether
the said articles are drugs within the meaning of
s. 3(b) of the Act.
The said section reads :
"drug" includes :-
(i)
all medicines for internal or external
use of human beings or animals and
all substances intended to be used
for or in the 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 the Ayurvedic or Unani systems of medicine,
and
(ii) such substanCP,S
(other than food)
intended to affect the structure or any
function of the
human body or
intended to be used for the destruction
of vermins or insects which cause
disease in human beings or animals as
may be specified from time to time
by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
The said definition of "drug" is comprehensive enough to take in not only m~dicines but also subs~ances
in tended to be used for or m the treatment of diseases
of human beings or animals. This artificial definition
1 S.C.R. SUP-R.EME COURT REPORTS
347
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 part of the definition which is material for
the present case is "substances intented to be used
for or in the treatment". The appropriate meaning of
the expression "substances" in the section is "things".
It cannot be disputed, and indeed it is not disputed,
that absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages and
gauze are "substances" within the meaning of the said
expression. If so, the next question is whether they
are used tor or in "treatment". The said articles are
sterilized or otherwise treated to make them disinfectant and then used for surgical dressing; they are
essential materials for treatment in surgical cases.
Besides being aseptic these articles have to possess
those qualities which are utilized in the treatment
of diseases.
Thus, for instance, in the case of
gauze-one of the articles concerned in this appealit has to conform to a standard of absorbency in order
that it might serve its purpose: otherwise the fluid
which oozes is left to accumulate at the site of the
wound or sore. The Legislature designedly extended
the definition of "drug" so as to take in substances
which are necessary aids for treating surgical or other
cases. The main object of the Act is to prevent substandards in drugs, presumably for maintaining high
standards of medical treatment. That would certainly
be defeated if the necessary concomitants of medical
or surgical treatment were allowed to be diluted: the
very same evil which the Act intends to eradicate
would continue to subsist. Learned counsel submitted
that surgical instruments would not fall within the
definition and that gauze and lint would fall within
th~ same class. It is not necessary for the purpose of
this appeal to definite exhaustively "the substances"
f'.llling within the definition of "drugs"; and we consider that whether or not surgical instruments are
"drugs", the articles concerned in this case are.
1962
Chimanlal
Jagjivandas Sheth
v.
State of kfaharashl.
Subh« Ra1t, J.
l.'J6:.!
( 'hi111a11lat
.la.::Ji,··a11rlr•s S!ict'1
v.
i'tate !'.l J\Ialunarhlra
Subba Rao, J.
:; 18
SU PRE ME COURT REPORTS [Hlll3] SUPP.
Learned counsel for the appellant sought to rely upon
a report of a high powered committee' consisting of
expert doctors, who expressed the opinion in the report that as the surgical dressings did not come under
the purview of the Drugs Act, no control on their
quality was being exercised.
Obviously, the opinion
of the medical experts would not help us in construing
a statutory provision.
\Ve, therefore, hold, agreeing
with the High Court, that the said articles arc substances used for or in the "treatment" within the
meaning of s. 3(b) of the Act.
An impassioned ap]ieal was made for reducing
the sentences imposed upon the appellant. When a
similar argument was advanced in the High Court, it
pointed ont that this was a gross case where large
quantities of spurious drugs had been manufactured
by the appellant and passed off as goods manufactured by a firm of repute. The appellant was guilty
of an anti-social act of a very serious nature.
In our
view, the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for
three months was more lenient than severe.
There is
no case for interference with the sentences.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.