http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SK. AMIR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/01/1974

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:  1974 AIR  469            1974 SCR  (3)  84  1974 SCC  (4) 210

ACT: Drugs   and   Cosmetics  Act  (23  of  1940)--Ss.   18   and 27--’Stocked for sale’ meaning and scope of

HEADNOTE: Immediately after he had obtained delivery of a parcel  from the railway authorities, the appellant was apprehended by  a railway  constable.  The parcel was found to contain  95,000 capsules of a sedative agent commonly used for intoxication. He  was  charged  with the offence of stocking  for  sale  a misbranded  drug without a licence under S. 18(a)  (ii)  and s.18(c)  read with S. 27(a) (ii) and 27(b) of the Drugs  and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the trial Court convicted him.   The District Judge on appeal, acquitted the appellant.  The High Court on further appeal sentenced the appellant to a minimum Sentence of one year’s imprisonment prescribed by the Act. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD  : Sections 18(a), 18(c) and 27(a) do not use the  word "stock."  in any technical sense.  The plain meaning of  the word "stock" in these provisions of the Act is "to keep" and the  injunction of the law means no more than this  that  no person  shall keep for sale a misbranded drug or a  drug  in respect  of  which a valid licence is not held.  It  is  not necessary  that  the drug should be ’stored’ in a  place  in order  that it can be said to have been "stocked" for  sale. If  any  one  keeps  or carries a  drug  on  his  person  in contravention of the terms of the Act and it is proved  that the  drug  is kept or carried for sale, the  act  must  fall within the mischief of the law.  What is "Intended for sale" can as much be stocked on one’s person as in a shop or in  a godown.  "Keeping" for sale is of the essence of the matter, not the mode and the manner of keeping.  To keep for sale is to stock for sale. [86C] In  the instant case a large quantity of capsules  found  in the possession of the appellant leaves no doubt that he  had stocked or kept the drug for sale. Dharam  Deo  Gupta  v.  State.  A. 1.  R.  (1958)  AU.  865, referred to.

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 197. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated the  18th/20th July, 1970 of the Bombay High  Court,  Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1968. U.   P. Singh and Santokh Singh, for the appellant. S.   B. Wad and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD,  J. On March 19, 1966 the appellant was  appre- hended  by a Railway constable at the gate of  the  Malkapur railway  station,  immediately  after he  had  obtained  the delivery  of  a  parcel.  The parcel was  found  to  contain 95,000 capsules of Seco Barbital Sodium which is a  sedative agent and is commonly used for intoxication.  The intoxicant is popularly called "Lal pari". The appellant was tried by the learned Judicial  Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur for offences under sections  18(a)(ii) and  18(c)  read with sections 27(a) (ii) and 27(b)  of  the Drugs  and Cosmetics Act, 23 of 1940, on the charge that  he had  stocked for sale a misbranded drug and that he  had  no licence  for  stocking  the drug for  sale.   The  appellant admitted that he was carrying the parcel at the time; of his arrest but his 85 defence was that he took delivery of the parcel on behalf of one  Mohamod  Jamadar who had represented to  him  that  the parcel  contained a ’science apparatus’ meant for a  school. The  Magistrate rejected this defence as  untrue,  convicted the appellant and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1200. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana acquitted  the appellant  on  the  view  that though  the  facts  raised  a suspicion  that the appellant or some other person on  whose behalf  the appellant had taken delivery of the  parcel  may have  had the object of selling the capsules, the mere  fact that the appellant was carrying the parcel would not justify the inference that the drug was stocked for sale. That  decision was set aside in appeal by the High Court  of Bombay  (Nagpur Bench) which held that the  prosecution  had proved conclusively that the accuse had stocked the drug for sale.  The High Court sentenced the appellant to the minimum sentence of one year’s imprisonment, prescribed by the  Act. This  appeal  by  special  leave  is  directed  against  the judgment of the High Court. Under section 3(b) (i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, ’drug’ includes " 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".   Section 17  by  its  seven  clauses  defines  misbranded  drugs  and clause(e) thereof, which is here relevant, says that a  drug shall  be deemed to be misbranded if it is not  labelled  in the prescribed manner.  Section 18(a) (ii) provides that "no person  shall himself or by any other person on  his  behalf manufacture for sale, or sell, or stock or exhibit for sale, or distribute any misbranded drug".. Section 18(c)  provides that  no  person shall "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 for such purpose"..  Section 27(a)  provides that whoever himself or by any other  person on  his  behalf  manufactures for  sale,  sells,  stocks  or exhibits  for sale or distributes any drug (i) deemed to  be misbranded  under clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (f) or (g)  of section  17,  or (ii) without a valid  licence  as  required under section 18(c), shall be punishable with  imprisonment,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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. It  is common ground that the substance which the  appellant was  found carrying is a ’drug’ and a misbranded  drug’  and that  he had no valid licence to stock it for sale.   Before the  High  Court  and the lower courts it  was  also  common ground  that  the  appellant had ’stocked’  the  drug.   The controversy   was  limited  to  the  question  whether   the appellant had stocked the drug ’for sale’.  The trial  court and  the  High  Court  relied  upon  various   circumstances particularly  the circumstance that the appellant was  found in  possession of as many as 95,000 capsules, in support  of their conclusion that the appellant had stocked 86                    . the  drug for sale.  The Sessions Court, on the other  hand, thought that there was no reliable evidence to show that the appellant had stocked the drug for sale. Before us, the argument has taken a different shape.  It  is urged that at the highest, the drug wag found on the  person of the appellant, which is not enough to establish that  the appellant had stocked the drug, We see no substance in this argument.  Section 18(a) of  the Act  which  lays  down an injunction that  no  person  shall ’stock’  for  sale a drug of  certain  description,  section 18(c) which says that no person shall ’stock for sale a drug except in accordance with the conditions of a licence issued for  such  purpose  and section  27(a)  which  prescribes  a penalty, for a person who stocks for sale a misbranded  drug or  a drug in respect of which no valid licence is held,  do not use the word ’stock’ in any technical sense.  The  plain meaning of the word’stock’ in these provisions of the Act is ’to  keep’ and the injunction of the law means no more  than this that no person shall keep for sale a misbranded drug or a drug in respect of which a valid licence is not held.   It is not necessary that the drug should be stored’ in a  place in order that it can be said to have been stocked’ for sale. If  anyone  keeps  or  carries  a  drug  on  his  person  in contravention of the terms of the Act and it is proved  that the  drug  is kept or carried for sale, the  act  must  fall within the mischief of the law under consideration.  In busy commercial  cities,  the  Streets are  crowded  with  mobile hawkers  who  display their wares on their  person.   It  is neither  sound  commonsence nor sound law to say  that  such wares  are not stocked for sale.  What is intended for  sale can as much be stocked on one’s person as in a shop or in  a godown.  ’Keeping for sale is of the essence of the  matter, not the mode and the manner of keeping.  To keep for sale is to  stock for sale.  The Shorter Oxford  English  Dictionary (Third Edition p. 2025) gives the meaning of the word stock’ as  "To  lay up in store; to form a stock or  supply  of  (a commodity) .... To keep (goods) in stock for sale".. The  judgement  of the Allahabad High Court  in  Dharam  Deo Gupta  Vs.  State, (1) on which the appellant  relies  deals with  a different point and lays down that mere stocking  of goods unless it is for the purpose of sale, does not  amount to an offence within the meaning of section 18 of the  Drugs and  Cosmetics  Act.   It was found in that  case  that  the accused had to stock certain ampoules of injection under the terms of a contract between him and the Government of India. The   large  quantity  of  95,000  capsules  found  in   the possession  of  the appellant leaves no doubt  that  he  had stocked  or kept the drug for sale. it could not  have  been

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

meant  for  his  personal use and his defence  that  he  had received the parcel on behalf of another person, not knowing what  it  contained, was rightly rejected by all  the  three courts. Accordingly  we dismiss the appeal and confirm the order  of conviction and sentence. P.B.R. Appeal dismissed (1)  A.I.R. 1958 All. 865, 87