- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mugutrao Digambar Ghorge v. State Of Maharasthra
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, proprietor of Santosh Medical Stores and a licensed dealer in medicines, was prosecuted for alleged possession of drugs without a valid licence under Section 18(c) read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. A Drug Inspector first searched the appellant’s store and found no unauthorised drugs. A subsequent search of the appellant’s residence uncovered insulin and other drug items, which were seized. The trial court acquitted the appellant. On the State’s appeal, the High Court reversed the acquittal, convicted the appellant, and imposed the statutory minimum sentence of one yearʼs rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,500 (with three months’ imprisonment in default). The appellant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, leading to the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant’s possession of drugs at his residence constituted an offence under Section 18(c) read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
- Whether the sentence imposed by the High Court should be maintained or reduced under the proviso to Section 27, which permits lesser punishment for “adequate and special reasons.”
Arguments of the Parties
Prosecution
- The drugs found at the appellant’s residence were possessed by him “for and on his behalf,” amounting to unauthorised stocking for sale or distribution in violation of Section 18(c).
Appellant
- Contended that the drugs discovered at his residence were merely stored and not intended for sale, thereby negating unauthorised possession within the meaning of the Act.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and agreed with the High Court’s finding that the appellant possessed the seized drugs personally and on his own behalf, thus satisfying the elements of Section 18(c). Consequently, the conviction was upheld.
Turning to sentencing, the Court examined the proviso to Section 27, which allows imposition of a term of imprisonment below the statutory minimum when “adequate and special reasons” are recorded. It identified several such reasons:
- The alleged offence occurred on 14 February 1982, and the complaint was filed only on 18 December 1985, indicating substantial delay.
- The trial court had originally acquitted the appellant, reflecting some doubt about culpability.
- No unauthorised drugs were found in the medical store itself; the disputed items were located only at the appellant’s residence.
- There was no direct allegation or evidence that the drugs found in the residence were intended for sale.
Considering these factors, the Court exercised its discretion under the proviso, holding that a reduction of the custodial sentence was justified while retaining the monetary fine.
Holding and Implications
Conviction affirmed; custodial sentence reduced to six weeks’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,500, and three months’ imprisonment in default of payment.
The decision leaves the appellant’s conviction intact but substantially shortens his term of imprisonment. The ruling does not articulate any new legal principle; its impact is confined to the present parties, illustrating the Court’s discretionary power to impose lesser sentences when “adequate and special reasons” exist under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
1. We have heard counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 18(c) read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. The trial Court acquitted him. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, which is the minimum sentence, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of which to suffer imprisonment for a period of three months.
Questioning the same the special leave petition is filed in this Court. The prosecution case is as follows:
The appellant is the proprietor of Santosh Medical Stores having a licence to deal in medicines. On an information, the Drug Inspector visited the store. He did not notice any unauthorised drugs. Thereafter he along with the accused went to the residence of the accused and made a search and there he found Insulin and other items of the drugs. They were seized after completing necessary formalities and the complaint was filed.
5. The High Court has considered the evidence on record in detail and has held that the possession of the seized drugs was with the accused and also for and on his behalf and accordingly convicted him.
6. Section 18 deals with the prohibition of manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics.
7. Under Section 27 penalties are prescribed. The section lays down that any person either himself or by any person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes any drug without a valid license 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 three years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees. The High Court, however, awarded the minimum of sentence of One year rigorous imprisonment but imposed a fine of Rupees 2,500/- only. Having gone through the records, we see no grounds to differ with the finding and conclusion arrived at by the High Court that an offence under Section 18(c) read with Section 27 is made out.
8. Now coming to the question of sentence, proviso to Section 27 lays down that the Court may, for any adequate and special reason to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year and fine of less than five thousand rupees.
9. The offence is alleged to have been committed on February 14, 1982. The complaint was filed on December 18, 1985 and it is also noted that the trial Court acquitted the accused. Further in the medical stores PW 2 did not notice any unauthorised drug. It is only in the house he found Insulin and other items of drugs. According to the prosecution these amounted to unauthorised drugs which are perhaps meant for sale. The accused has come forward with an explanation that he was only storing and he was not in unauthorised possession. Be that as it may, there is no allegation to the effect that drug which was found in the house was for sale. These are some valid reasons, in our view, forgiving the lesser sentence. The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six weeks with a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of which to suffer imprisonment for a period of three months.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Alert