http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: ZAFFAR MOHAMMAD @ Z.M. SARKAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/11/1975

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. GUPTA, A.C.

CITATION:  1976 AIR  171            1976 SCR  (2) 782  1976 SCC  (1) 428

ACT:      Drugs and Magic Remedies (objectionable Advertisements) Act (21 of 1954)-S. 3-Scope of.

HEADNOTE:      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 the Act. Section  7 of  the Act makes it penal to contravene any of the provisions of the Act.      The appellant  inserted an advertisement in a newspaper to the  effect  that  he  would  treat  diseases  "with  new methods, new machines of science and electric treatment". 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 appellant  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 GH]      (1) 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  magically  curative  properties were advertised  by the  appellant are  articles intended to influence the organic function of the human body. [784C]      (2) 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 s.  2(b)(iii) of  the Act. A

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

machine is intended to be and is conceived as a useful 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-E]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  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.      N.C. Talukdar,  Prodyut Kumar  Chatterjee  and  Sukumar Basu for the Appellant.      G.S. Chatterjee and Sukumar Basu for the Respondents. 783      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHANDRACHUD, J.  The appellant,  who is  a  homeopathic practitioner, runs  a dispensary at Harrison Road, Calcutta. In  the   issue  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 electric      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  of   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 E.  Of any  disease or  condition specified in the Schedule 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

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

                   human beings or animals;                 (iii) any article, other than food, intended                     to affect  or influence  in any  way the                     structure or any 784                     organic function  of the  body of  human                     beings or animals;                (iv)  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 impugn ed part  of the advertisement refers to a drug as defined by section 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 magically 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 learning 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 man  kind 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  possible  and  without  doing  violence  to  the language of  the Act,  be brought 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".      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. 785