# ZAFFAR MOHAMMAD @ Z. M. SARKAR v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

- **Citation:** [1976] 2 S.C.R. 782
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-11-25
- **Case number:** Crimrnal Appeal No. 162 of 1971
- **Bench:** Y. V. Chandrachud, A. C. Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/zaffar-mohammad-z-m-sarkar-v-the-state-of-west-bengal-6552
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

r •
Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertiseme111s) Act (21 of 1954)
t
-S. 3-Scope of.
Section 3 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements>
Act provides that no person shall take part in the publication of any advertisement referring to any drug in terms which suggest or are calculated to lead to
the use of that drug for the maintenance or improvement of the capacity of
human beings for sexual pleasure or the diagnosis, cure or treatment of anY
disease or condition specified in the Schedule to th.e kt. Section. 7 of the
Act makes it penal to contravene any of the provisions of tbe Act.
The appellant inserted an advertisement in a newspaper to the effect that
he would treat diseases ''with new methods, new 1nachines of science anc! elec1r;c
I reatlnent".
He was prosecuted under s. 7 read with s. 3 of the Act and was
convicted and sentenced.
The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.
On appeal to this Court. it was contended that the particular advertisement
did not refer to any "drug" and, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not
attracted.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : "Machines of science" designed to confer on mankind the blessings
of "New Life, New Vigour, New Spirit, New Wave" advertised by the appeJ.-
Jant are most likely to trap the ignorant and the unwary.
The articles of' commerce which the appellant had banefully advertised must be brought within the
mischief of the Act.
[784 GHl
( 1) Any article other than food which is intended to affect or inflnence in
any way any organic function of the body of a human being is a drug within
the meaning of that provision. The so-called "machines of science" or
of
"electric treatment" whose magically curative properties were advertised by the
appellant are articles intended to influence the organic function of the human
body.
[784CJ
(2) A machine is a tangible thing which can both be seen and felt and as
snch, it answers the description of an article within the meaning of s. 2(b )(iii)
of _the Act.
A machi'ne is intended to be and is conceived as a nsefUl thing
and is therefore, an "article''. It does no violence either to commonsense or
to rules of interpretation to say that a machine is an "article".
[784-D-EJ

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
782
ZAFFAR MOHAMMAD @ Z. M. SARKAR
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
November 25, 1975
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.)
r •
Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertiseme111s) Act (21 of 1954)
t
-S. 3-Scope of.
Section 3 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements>
Act provides that no person shall take part in the publication of any advertisement referring to any drug in terms which suggest or are calculated to lead to
the use of that drug for the maintenance or improvement of the capacity of
human beings for sexual pleasure or the diagnosis, cure or treatment of anY
disease or condition specified in the Schedule to th.e kt. Section. 7 of the
Act makes it penal to contravene any of the provisions of tbe Act.
The appellant inserted an advertisement in a newspaper to the effect that
he would treat diseases ''with new methods, new 1nachines of science anc! elec1r;c
I reatlnent".
He was prosecuted under s. 7 read with s. 3 of the Act and was
convicted and sentenced.
The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.
On appeal to this Court. it was contended that the particular advertisement
did not refer to any "drug" and, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not
attracted.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : "Machines of science" designed to confer on mankind the blessings
of "New Life, New Vigour, New Spirit, New Wave" advertised by the appeJ.-
Jant are most likely to trap the ignorant and the unwary.
The articles of' commerce which the appellant had banefully advertised must be brought within the
mischief of the Act.
[784 GHl
( 1) Any article other than food which is intended to affect or inflnence in
any way any organic function of the body of a human being is a drug within
the meaning of that provision. The so-called "machines of science" or
of
"electric treatment" whose magically curative properties were advertised by the
appellant are articles intended to influence the organic function of the human
body.
[784CJ
(2) A machine is a tangible thing which can both be seen and felt and as
snch, it answers the description of an article within the meaning of s. 2(b )(iii)
of _the Act.
A machi'ne is intended to be and is conceived as a nsefUl thing
and is therefore, an "article''. It does no violence either to commonsense or
to rules of interpretation to say that a machine is an "article".
[784-D-EJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimrnal Appeal No. 162
of 1971.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
11th December, 1970 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 145 of 1969.
I
;
I 1
H
N. C. Talukdar, Prodyut Kumar Chatterjee and Sukumar Basu
for the Appellant.
G. S. Chatterjee and Sukumar Basu for the Respondents.
' I
I
ZAFFAR MOHAMMAD v. WEST BENGAL (Chandrachud, /.) 783
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, J.
The appellant, who is a homoeopathic practitioner, runs a dispensary at Harrison Road, Calcutta.
In the bsue
of a Hindi newspaper, "Sanmarg", dated September 14, 1967 he had
the following advertisement published :
"New Life, New Vigour, New Spirit, New Wave.
If
you want a cure, see today
well
known
world-famous
experienced registered Physician.
Special diseases such as
oldness in youth, all sorts of defects in nerves, or weakness,
laziness are treated with full
responsibility,
with
new
methods, new machines of science and e\e.ctric
treatment
and ·are cured permanently ....... "
In behalf of this advertisement, the appellant was prosecuted under
section 7 read with section 3 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies
(Objectionable Advertisements
Act
21
of
1954.
The learned
Presidency Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta convicted the appellant
ot the aforesaid charge and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-.
The order of conviction and sentence having been confirmed by the
High Court of Calcutta, the appellant has filed this appeal by special
leave.
The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements)
Act provides by section 3, in so far as relevant, that no person shall
take part in the publication of any advertisement "referring to
any
drug in terms which suggest or are calculated to lead to the use
of
that drug" for the maintenance or improvement of the capacity of
human beings for sexual pleasure or the diagnosis, cure or treatment.
of any disease or condition specified in the Sechedule to the Act. Item
14 of the Schedule refers to "Disorders of the
nervous
system''.
Section 7 of the Act makes it penal to contravene any of the provisions of the Act.
The contention of the appellant was and before us is
that the
particular advertisement does not refer to any "drug" and therefore
the provisions of the Act are not attracted. For appreciating this
contention,· it is necessary to refer to section 2(b) of the Act which
runs thus:
"2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) *
*
*
*
*
(b) "drug" includes-
(i) - a medicine for the internal or external use of
human beings or animals;
(ii) any substance intended to be used for or
in
the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment
or
prevention of disease in
human
beings
or
animals;
(iii) any article, other than food, intended to affect
. or influence in any way the structure or ::iny
A
B·
i1)
E
7 84
(iv)
SUPREME COURT ~EPORTS
(1976] 2 S.C.R.
organic function of the body of human beings
or animals;
any article intended for use as a component of
any medicine, substance or article, referred to
in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii)."
The learned Magistrate as well as the High Court have
taken· the
view that the advertisement in question refers to a drug as defined
by section 2(b) (ii) above as "machines of science" are a "substance"
intended to be used in the diagnosis, cure or treatment of diseases in
human beings.
We do not propose to examine the correctness
of
this view because it seems to us clear that, in any event, the impugned part of the advertisement refers to a drug as defined
by :;-:;ction
2 (b) (iii).
Any article, other than food, which is intended to affect
or influence in any way any organic function of the body of a human
being is a drug within the meaning of that provision.
The so-called
"machines of science" or of "electric treatment"
whose
magil'.ally
curative properties were advertised by the
appellant
are
articles
intended to influence the organic function of the human body. Indeed,
the very claim of the appellant is that by the use of these machines
he could cure nervous diseases amongst other
ailments.
That
a
machine is an "article" requires no great Teaming either to expound
or to understand.
A machine is a tangible thing which can both be
seen and felt and as such it answers the description of an 'article'
within the meaning of section 2(b) (iii) of the Act.
The· 'Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary' (Ed. 1964, Vol. I, p. 102)
says
that
'article' means. inter alia, "a piece of goods or property".
Webster's
'New World Dictionary' defines an 'article' as a "commodity" and
'commodity' as "any useful thing" or "any article
of
commerce".
(See Ed. 1962 pp. 83 and 295).
Putting it simply, a "machine" is a
"thing" and is therefore an "article".
Law may not all be commonsense and logic may not be the life of law but commonsense is not
taboo in law courts.
A machine is after all intended to be and is
conceived as a useful thing and is therefore an "article".
The Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Act says that many
an advertisement causes the ignorant and the unwary "to resort to
quacks who indulge in such advertisements for
treatments
which
cause great harm".
The appellant may not be a quack, so will be
assume, but his "machines of science" designed to confer on
mankind the blessings of "New Life, New Vigour, New
Spirit,
New
Wave" are most likely to trap the ignorant and the
unwary.
The
articles of commerce which he has benefully advertised must, as far
as po~sible and without doing violence to the language of the Act, be
broui;.it within the mischief of the Act. It does no violence either
to commonsense or to rules of interpretation to say that a machine
is an "article".
H
·
In the result, we confirm the judgment. of the High Court, though
for a different reason, and dismiss this appeal.
P.B.R.
Appeal dismissed.
..