http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: RAJASTHAN PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORY, BANGALORE AND TWOOTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/01/1981

BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH

CITATION:  1981 AIR  809            1981 SCR  (2) 604  1981 SCC  (1) 645        1981 SCALE  (1)139

ACT:      Drugs and  Cosmetics Act,  1940-Offences under  sec. 18 (c), (Sale  without licence);  under sec. 18(a)(i), (Selling sub-standard quality  drugs); under  sec. 28 (non-disclosure of source  of purchase  of drugs  exhibited for  sale);  and under  sec.   18(a)(vi),   (disposing   of   drugs   against prohibitory orders)  under sec. 22(1)(c) of the Act and Rule 54A of  the rules  framed thereunder-Sentences  validity of- Vicarious liability  of partners  under sec.  34 of the Act- Fine ordered  in excess  of the statutory maximum under sec. 18A is  not in  order-Whether  the  additional  sentence  of imprisonment on  one of the accused for the same offence was illegal-Plea of  ignorance about  the  sub-standard  quality would be  a valid  defence only  as provided by sub-see. (2) and (3)  of sec. 19 of the Act-Sec. 22(1)(c) of the Act does not provided  for a  separate punishment in addition to sec. 27(b) of the Act.

HEADNOTE:      M/s.   Rajasthan   Pharmaceutical   Laboratory,   first appellant in  Criminal Appeal  No. 120  of 1975 is a firm of which the  second appellant  is  a  partner  and  the  third appellant is  a manager. The first appellant holds a licence under the  Drugs and  Cosmetics Act,  1940 for re-packing of drugs mentioned  in the list which forms part of the licence and, therefore,  is a manufacturer of the said drugs for the purposes of  the Act  in view  of the definition of the term "manufacture" occurring  in sec. 3(f) of the Act. The second and the  third appellant  are also  a partner  and a manager respectively of the first appellant, M/s. Manoj Drug House & others, in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1975.      A search  of the  business premises  in Criminal Appeal 120 of  1975  resulted  in  seizure  of  sub-standard  drug, "Sodium Bromide  I.P." Batch No. 1 and in Criminal Appeal 96 of 1975 of a sub-standard drug "Liquid Paraffin I.P. 450 ml. Batch No. 1’.      Besides the  three appellants  in  these  two  appeals, another partner  of these two firms figured as an accused in the complaint  but as  he was absconding the trial could not proceed against  him. In  Criminal Appeal  120 of  1975  the appellants were  charged under  sections 18(c), 18(a)(1) and 28 of  the Drugs  and Cosmetics  Act, 1940  and in  Criminal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Appeal 96  of 1975 they were charged under sections 18(a)(i) and 18(a)(ii).      The appellants  in both  the appeals  were acquitted by the trial  court. But in appeals preferred by the State, the High Court in Criminal Appeal 120 of 1975, sentenced each of the three  appellants to  pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 on each of the counts  in default  appellants Nos.  2  and  3  were  to undergo simple  imprisonment for three months "for each non- payment of  line". For  the same  offences  the  High  Court further sentenced  the third  appellant "by  virtue of  sec. 34(2) of  the Act  to undergo  simple imprisonment for three months on each 605 count and  to pay  a fine  of Rs.  500 on  each count and in default of  payment to simple imprisonment for one month for "each non-payment of fine". The substantive sentences passed on the third appellant were directed to run concurrently. In Criminal Appeal  96 of  1975 the  High Court  convicted  the accused under sec. 18(a)(i) and sec. 18(a)(vi) and sentenced each of  them to  pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each count, the second and  the third  appellants  were  to  undergo  simple imprisonment for  one month  in default of payment. The High Court further  convicted  them  "for  having  committed  the offence punishable  under sec. 22(1)(c)" and sentenced "each one of the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 for the offence under sec. 22(1)(c)".      Allowing  both   the  appeals  in  part  and  remanding Criminal Appeal  120 of  1975 to  the High  Court for proper sentences, the Court. ^      HELD: (1)  The additional  sentence of  imprisonment on the third  appellant for the same offence is illegal. But in sentencing the second and the third appellants to pay a fine only for  the offence  under sec.  18(c); the  provisions of sec. 27  (a) (ii)  which make  a  sentence  of  imprisonment compulsory has been overlooked. [612B]      (2) Sec.  27(a) (ii)  of the  Act makes  a sentence  of imprisonment of  not less  than one  year compulsory  for an offence under  s. 18(c)  in  addition  to  fine  unless  for special reasons  a sentence  of imprisonment  for  a  lesser period was  warranted. Of  course, in the nature of things a company or  a firm  could not  be sent to jail but that does not apply  to the  other two appellants in the instant case. [611E-F]      (3) By  virtue of sec. 34(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the  appellants 2 and 3 are accused to be guilty of the offences  committed   by  the   first  appellant,   as   the explanation appended  to sec.  34 makes its provisions apply to a firm and its partners. [611A-B]      (4) The  non-obstante clause with which sub-sec. (2) of sec. 34  begins does  not permit  the court  to  punish  the offender twice  for the  same offence. It is plain that sec. 34(2) imposes  a liability on those directors or officers of the company who are not directly in charge of the management of the company and as such could not be held guilty with the help of  sub-section (1) of sec.34, if they were responsible for the commission of the offences by consent, connivance or neglect. It  would be  incongruous if  a  man  found  to  be directly responsible for the commission of the offence could at the  same time  be held  guilty of  contributing  to  the commission of  the offence  by his  consent,  connivance  or neglect. [611 B-C]      There is  nothing in the language of sec. 34 to warrant a construction,  that the  words "punished  accordingly"  in clause (2)  of sec.  34 of  the Act  mean that  the  persons

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

mentioned therein  can be punished only in the same way as a company would  be punishable,  that is, only with a fine and not with  an imprisonment.  The words "punished accordingly" in the  context mean that a person deemed to be guilty of an offence committed  by a company shall receive the punishment that is prescribed by the Act for that offence. [611G]      The State  of Maharashtra  v. Joseph  Anthony  Pereira, (1971) 73 B.L.R. 613, overruled. 606      (6) For  the contravention  of provisions  of sec. 18A, sec. 28  prescribed imprisonment for a term which may extend to one  year or  with fine  which may extend to five hundred rupees or  with both. Clearly therefore no fine in excess of five hundred  rupees could  be imposed  for an offence under sec. 18A.  The imposition  of a  fine of  Rs. 2,000  for the offence under sec. 18A which is punishable under sec. 28, in the instant case, is not in order. [611H]      (7) The  plea of ignorance of the nature, sub-stance or quality of the drug in view of the fact that accused got the supplies  of   these   drugs   from   the   firm   Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory,  who are the packers, is not only not covered  by sub-sec.  (2)  and  (3)  of  sec.  19  which enumerate the  cases in which general rule continued in sub- sec. (1)  would not  apply,  but  also  factually  incorrect because appellants  2 and  3 in  Criminal Appeal 96 of 1975, are respectively  a partner  and the  manager  of  both  the firms, Rajasthan  Pharmaceutical Laboratory  and Manoj  Drug House. [613 F-H]      (8) Sec.  22(1)(c) does  not  provide  for  a  separate punishment. Rule 54A of the rules framed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act  prohibits contravention  of  the  prohibitory order made  under sec.  22(1)(c) and sec. 27(b) itself makes such contravention punishable with imprisonment or with fine or with both. [614 G-H]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1975.      Appeal by  special leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated 29-1-1975  of the  Karnataka High  Court  in  Criminal Appeal No. 274/74.                             AND      Writ Petition No. 2929 of 1980.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution).                             AND      Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1975.      Appeal by  special leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated 13-9-1974  of the  Karnataka High  Court  in  Criminal Appeal No. 168/74.      S. K. Bisaria for the appellant in Cr. A. No. 96/75.      A. K. Sen and S. K. Bisaria for the appellant in Cr. A. 120/75 and for the Petitioner in W.P. 2929/80.      N. Nettar for the respondent in all the matters. 607      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by               Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1975      GUPTA, J.-  This is  an appeal  by special leave from a judgment of the Karnataka High Court by which the High Court set aside  the acquittal  of the  three appellants before us ordered by  the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, (4th Court), Bangalore and  convicted them  of various  offence under the Drugs and  Cosmetics Act,  1940 (hereinafter  referred to as the Act).  The first appellant M/s. Rajasthan Pharmaceutical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

Laboratory is  a firm  of which  the second  appellant is  a partner and  the third  appellant is  the Manager. The first appellant holds  a licence  under the  Act for  repacking of drugs mentioned in the list which forms part of the licence. For  purposes   of  the   Act  the   first  appellant  is  a manufacturer of  the said drugs in view of the definition of the term  ’manufacture’ occurring in section 3(f) of the Act which is as follows:-           "manufacture in  relation to  any drug or cosmetic      includes any  process or  part of a process for making,      altering, ornamenting,  finishing, packing,  labelling,      breaking up  or otherwise treating or adopting any drug      or cosmetic  with a  view to  its sale and distribution      but does  not include  the compounding or dispensing of      any drug, or the packing of any drug or cosmetic in the      ordinary   course   of   retail   business;   and   ’to      manufacture’ shall be construed accordingly;" On February 27, 1970 on a search of the business premises of the first  appellant, a  Drugs Inspector  seized 42 items of drugs from a room, 33 of which were not in the approved list of drugs  appended  to  the  licence  issued  to  the  first appellant. The  third appellant  who is  the Manager  of the firm and  was present  during the  search failed to disclose the source  from which  these drugs  had been acquired. To a notice issued  under section 18A of the Act calling upon the first appellant to disclose the source of acquisition of the drugs seized,  the reply,  signed by  the third appellant on behalf of  the firm, was a denial of the fact that the drugs were found  in their  possession and  that they were seized. Samples were  taken from the seized drugs which were sent to the Government Analyst and from his report it was found that one of  the drugs,  Sodium Bromide I.P. Batch No. 1 was sub- standard. On the aforesaid facts the Drugs Inspector filed a complaint in  the court  of the  Judicial Magistrate,  First Class (4th  Court), Bangalore  alleging that  the appellants before us  were guilty  of having  committed offences  under sections 18(c),  18(a)(i) and  18A  punishable  respectively under sections  27(a)(ii), 27(b)  and 28 of the Act. Another partner of  the firm  also figured  as  an  accused  in  the complaint but as he was absconding the trial could 608 not proceed  against him.  As already  stated the magistrate acquitted the appellants.      On the facts on record the High Court found:      (a) 33  out of  the 42  items of  drugs seized from the business premises  of the  first appellant  do not figure in the approved  list of  drugs which forms part of the licence issued to  the first appellant. These 33 items had been kept in the premises for sale without the requisite licence. This constitutes an  offence under  section 18(c)  of the Act for which all  the appellants are punishable under section 27(a) (ii).      (b) Of  the samples of the drugs seized and sent to the Government Analyst, one sample of Sodium Bromide I. P. Batch No. 1 was found to be sub-standard. An offence under section 18 (a)  (i) has  therefore  been  committed  for  which  the appellants are punishable under section 27(b).      (c) The  appellants failed  to disclose  the source  of acquisition of  the aforesaid  33 items  of drugs which were not in  the approved list. This constitutes an offence under section 18A  which makes  the  appellants  punishable  under section 28 of the Act.      For these offences the High Court sentenced each of the three appellants  to pay  a fine  of Rs. 2000 on each of the counts, in  default appellants  nos. 2 and 3 were to undergo

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

simple imprisonment  for three  months ’for each non-payment of fine’.  For the  same offences  the  High  Court  further sentenced the  third appellant "by virtue of section 34 (2)" of the  Act to  undergo simple imprisonment for three months on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 on each count, in default of  payment to simple imprisonment for one month for ’each non-payment of fine’. The substantive sentences passed on the third appellant were directed to run concurrently.      The only  contention raised  before us by Mr. A. K. Sen for the  appellants was  that  the  additional  sentence  of imprisonment on  the third  appellant for  the same offences was  illegal.   Mr.  Sen’s   contention  is  right.  But  in sentencing the second and the third appellants to pay a fine only for  the offence  under section  18(c), the  High Court appears to  have overlooked the provisions of section 27 (a) (ii) which makes a sentence of imprisonment compulsory.      Chapter IV  of the  Act, headed  "Manufacture, Sale and Distribution of  Drugs and Cosmetics" includes section 16 of section 33A.  Section 18  provides inter  alia :  "no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf: 609      (a)  Manufacture for sale, or sell, or stock or exhibit           for sale or distribute-           (i)  any drug or cosmetic which is not of standard                quality:      (b)            x           x          x      (c)  manufacture for sale, or sell, or stock or exhibit           for sale  or  distribute  any  drug  or  cosmetic,           except  under,   and  in   accordance   with   the           conditions of a licence issued.........                   x            x           x Section 18A in these terms:      "Disclosure of the name of manufacture:-      Every person  not being  the manufacturer  of a drug or      cosmetic or  his agent  for the  distribution  thereof,      shall, if  so required,  disclose to  the Inspector the      name, address  and other particulars of the person from      whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic." Section  27  which  enumerates  the  penalties  for  illegal manufacture, sale, etc of drugs reads-      "Whoever himself  or by  any other person on his behalf      manufactures for  sale, sells,  stocks or  exhibits for      sale or distributes-           (a)  any drug-                (i)           x          x         x                (ii) without  a  valid  licence  as  required                     under clause (c) of section 18.      shall be  punishable with imprisonment for a term which      shall not be less than one year but which may extend to      ten years and shall also be liable to fine:           Provided that  the  Court  may,  for  any  special      reasons to be recorded in writing, impose a sentence of      imprisonment of less than one year;           (b) any  drug other  than a  drug referred  to  in      clause (a) in contravention of any of the provisions of      this Chapter  or any  rule  made  thereunder  shall  be      punishable with  imprisonment  for  a  term  which  may      extend to three years, or with fine or with both." 610 Section 28  provides for  "penalty for non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer etc." and states           "Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 18A      shall be  punishable with imprisonment for a term which      may extend  to one  year, or with fine which may extend      to five hundred rupees, or with both."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

    In this  case the  offences mentioned  above  had  been committed   by the  appellant firm  which was engaged in the business of repacking of drugs. In view of the definition of the term  ’manufacture’ in section 3(f), packing amounted to manufacture in  relation to  the said drugs for the purposes of the  Act. It  is necessary  to refer to the provisions of section 34  of the Act which creates vicarious liability for an offence  under the  Act committed  by  a  body  corporate including a firm:           "34. (1)  Where an offence under this Act has been      committed by a company every person who at the time the      offence was  committed,  was  in  charge  of,  and  was      responsible to  the company  for  the  conduct  of  the      business of  the company,  as well as the company shall      be deemed  to be  guilty of  the offence  and shall  be      liable   to   be   proceeded   against   and   punished      accordingly:           Provided  that   nothing  contained  in  this  sub      section shall  render any  such person  liable  to  any      punishment provided  in this  Act if he proves that the      offence was  committed without his Knowledge or that he      exercised all  due diligence  to prevent the commission      of such offence.           (2) Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-      section (1),  where an  offence under this Act has been      committed by  a company  and  it  is  proved  that  the      offence  has   been  committed   with  the  consent  or      connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the      part of,  any director,  manager,  secretary  or  other      officer  of   the  company,   such  director,  manager,      secretary or  other officer  shall also be deemed to be      guilty of  that offence  and  shall  be  liable  to  be      proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section-           (a)  ’company’  means   a  body   corporate,   and                includes  a  firm  or  other  association  of                individuals; and           (b)  ’director’ in  relation to  a  firm  means  a                partner in the firm." 611      The High  Court held  and rightly  that "by  virtue  of section 34(1)  of the Act, it will have to be held that both respondents 2  and 3 [present appellants 2 and 3] are deemed to be guilty of these offences committed by respondent No. 1 [the first  appellant  in  this  Court]".  In  view  of  the explanation appended to section 34 its provisions will apply to a  firm and  its partners.  But having  found  the  third appellant guilty  with the aid of sub-section (1) of section 34, the  High Court  appears to  have misdirected  itself in thinking that the non-obstante clause with which sub-section (2) of  the section begins permitted the court to punish the appellant twice  for the  same offence.  It  is  plain  that section 34(2)  imposes a  liability on  those  directors  or officers of  the company  who were not directly in charge of the management  of the company and as such could not be held guilty with  the help  of sub-section  (1) of section 34, if they were  responsible for  the commission of the offence by consent, connivance  or neglect.  It would  also be a little incongruous if  a man  found to  be directly responsible for the commission of the offence could at the same time be held guilty of  contributing to  the commission of the offence by his consent,  connivance or  neglect. The further punishment awarded to the third appellant with the aid of section 34(2) is therefore  set aside.  But this  does  not  conclude  the matter. The High Court imposed a fine of two thousand rupees

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

on each  of the  three  appellants  for  the  offence  under section 18(c).  Section  27(a)  (ii)  makes  a  sentence  of imprisonment of  not less  than one year compulsory for such offence in  addition to  fine unless  for special  reasons a sentence of  imprisonment for a lesser period was warranted. Of course  in the nature of things a company or a firm could not be sent to jail but that does not apply to the other two appellants. Mr.  Sen referred  to a  decision of  the Bombay High Court reported in (1971) 73 B.L.R. 613 which holds that the words "punished accordingly" in clause (2) of section 34 of the  Act mean  that the  persons mentioned therein can be punished only  in  the  same  way  as  a  company  would  be punishable,  that   is,  only  with  a  fine  and  not  with imprisonment. We  are unable  to agree.  There is nothing in the language  of section  34 to warrant such a construction. It seems  clear to  us that the words "punished accordingly" in the  context mean that a person deemed to be guilty of an offence committed  by a company shall receive the punishment that is  prescribed by  the Act for that offence. It appears that the  High Court was also in error in imposing a fine of two thousand  rupees for the offence under section 18A which is punishable  under section  28. For  the contravention  of provisions   of   section   18A,   section   28   prescribes imprisonment for a term which 612 may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees  or with  both. Clearly  therefore no fine in excess of  five hundred  rupees  could  be  imposed  for  an offence under section 18A.      In the  result, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants, we  remit the  case to  the High Court; the High Court will  consider again  on the findings already recorded the question  of sentence-(a)  for the offence under section 18(c)  punishable   under  section  27(a)  (ii)  so  far  as appellants 2  and 3  are concerned,  and (b) for the offence punishable  under   section  28   of  which  all  the  three appellants have  been  found  guilty,-and  pass  appropriate sentences. The  appeal is  allowed to  the extent and in the manner indicated above.                Writ Petition No. 2929 of 1980      The writ  petition questions  the validity of the order of the High Court punishing the third appellant in the above appeal (Criminal  appeal No. 120 of 1975) twice for the same offences with  the aid  of section 34(2) of the Act. In view of our  decision in  the appeal no order is necessary on the writ petition.                Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1975      By the  judgment impugned  in this appeal which is also by special  leave, the  Karnataka High  Court set  aside  an order of  acquittal passed  by the  Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class  (Ist   Court),  Bangalore   City  and  convicted  the appellants before  us for  having committed  offences  under section 18(a)  (i) and 18(a) (vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Of the three appellants  in   this  appeal   the  second  and  the  third appellants are  the same persons as in the other appeal. The second appellant  is a  partner and the third is the manager of the first appellant, a firm called M/s. Manoj Drug House. The absconding  partner of  the other firm is also a partner of the  first  appellant  here.  The  firm  possessed  valid licence to  sell, stock  and exhibit  for  sale  drugs.  The magistrate before  whom the  appellants were  tried for  the aforesaid offences  acquitted them; the High Court on appeal set aside the order of acquittal as already stated.      The facts  found by  the High Court in this case are as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

follows. On  July 17, 1970 the Assistant Drug Controller for the State  of Mysore  who had  been appointed  as  Inspector under section 21 of the Act took samples of "Liquid Paraffin I.P." Batch  I, and  "Formaline I.P."  Batch 1 which, as the labels on  these drugs  showed, had  been repacked  by  M/s. Rajasthan Pharmaceutical  Laboratory, the first appellant in the other case. The Inspector sent the samples to the 613 Government Analyst  and the  report received from him showed that the products were not of standard quality. On September 9, 1970  the Drugs Inspector, Bangalore Division, found that the firm  M/s. Manoj  Drug House  was  exhibiting  for  sale stocks  of  the  drugs  which  the  Government  Analyst  had declared as  not of standard quality. He therefore issued an order under section 22(1)(c) of the Act prohibiting the sale of the  said drugs  for a  certain period which was extended from time  to time.  On October 28, 1970 the Inspector asked the third  appellant who  was the  Manager of  the  firm  to produce the  stock of  the prohibited  drugs. The  Inspector seized the  stock produced  before him but this was found to be short by 57 bottles of Liquid Paraffin I.P. 450 ml. Batch No. 1.  On these facts a complaint was filed in the court of the City  Magistrate, Bangalore alleging that the appellants were guilty  of an offence under section 18(a)(i) of the Act for having  in their stock and exhibiting for sale drugs not of standard  quality and further that they were guilty of an offence  under   section  18(a)(vi)  for  disposing  of  the aforesaid quantities  of Liquid Paraffin I.P. Batch No. 1 in spite of  the prohibitory order under section 22(1) (c) thus contravening rule  54A of  the Rules  framed under  the Act. Both these  offences are  punishable under  section 27(b) of the Act. The trial court acquitted the accused but on appeal preferred by the State of Karnataka the High Court set aside the order  of acquittal  and  convicted  the  accused  under section 18(a)(i)  and section  18(a)(vi), and sentenced each of the  accused to  pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count : the second  and the  third appellants were to undergo simple imprisonment for  one month in default of payment. We see no reason to  interfere with  the findings  of fact recorded by the High Court. The only point argued before us on behalf of the appellants  which was  also urged  in the High Court was that they  got the  supplies of  these drugs  from the  firm Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory who were the packers and the appellants  did  not  know  that  the  drugs  were  sub- standard. The  High Court  rightly pointed out that this did not constitute  a valid  defence in view of section 19(1) of the Act which is as follows.      "19. Pleas.-(1)  Save as  hereinafter provided  in this      Section, it  shall be no defence in a prosecution under      this Chapter  to prove  merely  that  the  accused  was      ignorant of  the nature,  substance or  quality of  the      drug or  cosmetic in  respect of  which the offence has      been  committed   or  of   the  circumstances   of  its      manufacture or  import, or  that  a  purchaser,  having      bought only  for the  purpose of  test or analysis, has      not been prejudiced by the sale." 614 The High  Court found  that the  case of the accused was not covered by  sub-sections (2)  and (3)  of section  19  which enumerate the  cases in  which the general rule contained in sub-section (1) would not apply. In this connection it is to be noted  that appellants  Nos. 2  and 3  are respectively a partner  and  the  manager  of  both  the  firms,  Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory, and Manoj Drug House. This appeal therefore must  fail. It appears however that the High Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

having convicted  the appellants  as aforesaid and sentenced them under  section 27(b)  of the Act further convicted them "for having  committed the  offence  punishable  under  sec. 22(1)(c)" and  sentenced "each  one of  the accused to pay a fine of  Rs. 1,000/-  (Rupees One  thousand) for the offence under Sec.  22(1) (c)".  Section 22(1) deals with the powers of Inspectors,  clause (c) of which states that an Inspector may within  the local  limits of  the area  for which  he is appointed.      "enter and  search at  all reasonable  times, with such      assistants. if  any, as  he  considers  necessary,  any      place in which he has reason to believe that an offence      under this  Chapter has  been or is being committed and      order in  writing the  person in possession of any drug      or cosmetic in respect of which the offence has been or      is being committed, not to dispose of any stock of such      drug or  cosmetic for  a specified period not exceeding      twenty days, or unless the alleged offence is such that      the defect  may be removed by the possessor of the drug      or cosmetic seize the stock of such drug or cosmetic." Rule 54A of the Rules framed under the Act provides:      "54A. Prohibition  of sale.- No person in possession of      a drug  in respect  of which  an Inspector  has made an      order under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 22      of the Act shall in contravention of that order sell or      otherwise dispose of any stock of such drug." Rule 54A prohibits contravention of a prohibitory order made under section  22(1) (c) and section 27(b) itself makes such contravention punishable  with imprisonment  or with fine or with both  Section 22(1) (c) does not provide for a separate punishment. Accordingly  we set  aside the conviction of the appellants purported to be under section 22(1)(c) of the Act and the sentences passed in respect of the said ’offence’.      Subject to  the modification indicated above the appeal is dismissed. S.R.                                 Appeals partly allowed. 615