In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court recently ruled on a Special Leave Petition, confirming the conviction of an 85-year-old man and his son for violating Sections 27 (b) (ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. However, the Court made a modification to their sentence by reducing it to serving just one day, to be completed until the trial Court's rising.
Section 27 (b) (ii) of the Act stipulates that a Court can impose a sentence of imprisonment for less than three years and a fine of less than one lakh rupees only when there are adequate and specific reasons recorded in the judgment.
The Bench, presided over by Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar, expressed their disinclination to intervene in the challenged order. However, upon considering the fact that the first petitioner is approximately 85 years old and the second petitioner is his son, who serves as a Sanskrit lecturer, the Court directed them to serve a one-day sentence, to be completed by the time the trial Court adjourns.
We are inclined to invoke proviso to Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as we find that there are adequate special reasons for the reduction of the sentence", observed the Bench in its order.
Accordingly, the Court ordered, "The sentence imposed for a period of one year stands modified to the effect that the petitioners shall undergo, sentence till the rising of the trial Court." The Court however refused to interfere with the fine imposed. "We further make it clear that the fine imposed shall stand confirmed", noted the Bench in its order. Further, for carrying out the aforesaid sentence, the Court directed the Petitioners to be present before the Court concerned on November 21, 2023.
Case Brief -
The Petitioners had approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Karnataka High Court's decision, which had overturned the acquittal order issued by the Session Judge in Mysore. This legal dispute originated from a private complaint filed against the Petitioners back in 2003 by an Assistant Drug Controller, accusing them of offenses punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The Petitioners were accused of unlawfully stocking, displaying, and offering drugs for sale without holding a valid drug license, as mandated by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Additionally, it was discovered that the Petitioners had failed to obtain the necessary license for operating a medical shop. Subsequently, the Trial Court convicted the Petitioners for these offenses, but on appeal, they were acquitted by the Session Court.
Click here to Read/Download the Order
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy