- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State, Rep. By The Drug Inspector, Madurai Circle, Madurai v. Dr. Anuradha Ramnath
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Drug Inspector Sivapunniam, filed a complaint against Dr. Anuradha Ramnath for an offence under Sec. 18(c) read with 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. On 22.9.1995, the Drug Inspector inspected M/s. Mahalakshmi Pharma, who sold A.C.D Solution to Dr. Ramnath in violation of licensing conditions restricting sale to licensed blood banks only. Subsequently, the Drug Inspector inspected the accused's clinic, Ramradha Nursing Home, and found 7 bottles of A.C.D Solution stocked there. Dr. Ramnath admitted to purchasing 67 bottles from Mahalakshmi Pharma and using 57 bottles for mixing with blood for patient transfusions, despite lacking a blood bank licence. A show cause notice was issued and upon unsatisfactory explanation, a complaint was filed. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no evidence the A.C.D Solution was stocked for sale. The appellant challenged this acquittal by filing the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the accused committed an offence under Sec. 18(c) read with 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act by manufacturing whole human blood without a valid drug licence.
- Whether mere possession of A.C.D Solution, without evidence of sale or distribution, constitutes an offence under the said provisions.
- Whether the inconsistencies in the sanction, complaint, and charge affect the prosecution's case.
- Whether the retracted confession statement (Ex.P-2) can be relied upon to prove the offence.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the trial court's acquittal was incorrect.
- He relied on various provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and evidence including the confession statement (Ex.P-2) to argue that the accused manufactured whole human blood without a valid licence.
- He emphasized that the accused purchased A.C.D Solution meant only for licensed blood banks and used it to manufacture and transfuse blood to patients.
Respondent's Arguments
- The accused denied committing the offence during questioning under Section 313, Cr.P.C.
- The defence pointed to the absence of evidence showing that the A.C.D Solution was stocked for sale or that manufactured blood was sold or distributed.
- The accused retracted the confession statement (Ex.P-2) in Ex.P-7.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Loganathan v. State, 1992 M.L.J (Crl.) 126 | Mere possession of drugs without evidence of sale or distribution does not attract penal provisions. | Supported the court's view that possession alone was insufficient to prove the offence. |
| Drug Inspector v. Elias V. Palal, 1987 M.L.J (Crl.) 334 | Same principle regarding possession versus sale or distribution. | Reinforced the necessity of proof beyond mere possession for conviction. |
| Sanat Kumar Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1984 Crl.L.J 931 | Possession without evidence of intent to sell or distribute is insufficient to convict under the Act. | Applied to highlight the lack of evidence of sale or distribution by the accused. |
| Mohd. Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R 1979 S.C 564 | Possession alone does not constitute offence under relevant penal provisions. | Used to uphold the acquittal as possession of A.C.D Solution was not shown to be for sale or distribution. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court observed that the prosecution's case was based on the accused possessing A.C.D Solution and allegedly manufacturing whole human blood without a licence. However, the prosecution failed to produce evidence showing that the A.C.D Solution was stocked for sale or that the manufactured blood was sold or distributed to patients. Notably, no statements were obtained from patients to prove sale or distribution. The charge framed was inconsistent with the sanction and complaint, creating further doubt. The court relied on established precedents holding that mere possession of drugs without evidence of sale or distribution does not attract penal liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Furthermore, the prosecution's reliance on the confession statement was undermined by the accused's subsequent retraction. Consequently, the court found that the offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and sustained the acquittal.
Holding and Implications
The appeal against acquittal is dismissed.
The direct effect of this decision is that the accused, Dr. Anuradha Ramnath, remains acquitted of the charges under Sec. 18(c) read with 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. No new precedent is established; the ruling reaffirms existing legal principles requiring proof of sale or distribution beyond mere possession for conviction under the Act.
The Drug Inspector, the appellant herein, filed a complaint against Dr. Anuradha Ramnath, the respondent/accused, for the offence under Sec. 18(c) read with 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The case ended in acquittal. Hence, this appeal against acquittal.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
“(a) The complainant, Sivapunniam (P.W.1), the Drug Inspector, on 22.9.1995, inspected M/s. Mahalakshmi Pharama, Madurai, who is having a drug licence to deal with wholesale business. During inspection, it was found that they sold A.C.D Solution to Dr. Anuradha Ramnath in violation of the licensing condition that it should be sold to the licensed blood bank only.
(b) Based on the said particulars, P.W 1 along with other Drug Inspector, inspected the Clinic of the accused, “Ramradha Nursing Home”, on 22.9.1995 at about 1.60 p.m During inspection, it was found that 7 bottles of A.C.D Solution, which is the raw material for manufacturing blood, were stocked.
(c) The accused gave a statement that she purchased 67 bottles of A.C.D Solution from Mahalakshmi Pharma and out of the 64 bottles, she used 57 bottles for mixing with the blood collected from the donors and administered the same to her patients for pre and post operative surgery.
(d) Since the said Nursing Home does not have the licence to operate blood bank, a show cause notice was issued to the accused. Since the explanation given by the accused was not satisfactory, P.W.1, the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed a complaint against the accused for the offence under Sec. 18(c) read wtih 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.”
3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-8 were filed and M.Os 1 and 2 were marked. During the questioning under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C, the accused stated that she did not commit the offence.
4. The trial Court, after considering the materials, acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the A.C.D Solution was stocked for sale and as such, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
5. Challenging the said finding of acquittal, Mr. E. Raja, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by referring about various provisions of the Act and reading out the relevant portions of the evidence adduced by P.Ws 1 to 3 and Ex.P-2 confession statement of the accused, would state that the finding given by the trial Court is wrong.
6. I heard Mr. A.V Somasundaram, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
7. Though several grounds have been urged by the respective parties while making an attempt to substantiate their pleas, I am of the view that the acquittal can be sustained on a short ground.
8. According to Ex.P-8 sanction, the prosecution was directed to be launched under Sec. 18(c) read with 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for having manufactured whole human blood without any valid drug licence. In the complaint filed by the appellant, it is stated that the accused, Dr. Anuradha Ramnath, purchased 64 bottles of A.C.D Solution, which is meant only for licensed blood bank, from Mahalakshmi Pharma and out of the said 64 bottles, she blended whole human blood and transfused using 57 bottles of A.C.D Solution, after manufacturing blood.
9. The charge framed by the trial Court would reveal that she was accused of having stocked the raw material for manufacturing blood and after manufacture, she sold or distributed the same to her patients for wrongful gain.
10. It may be true that 7 bottles of A.C.D Solution were recovered from the clinic run by the accused, but there is no material to show that with that A.C.D Solution, the blood was manufactured and sold or distributed to the patients, in view of the fact that no attempt was made by the Drug Inspector to obtain statement from those patients in order to prove either sale or distribution.
11. Furthermore, the accusation mentioned in the sanction, complaint and the charge is not consistent.
12. As laid down in the decisions in (1) Loganathan v. State, 1992 M.L.J (Crl.) 126;(2) Drug Inspector v. Elias V. Palal, 1987 M.L.J (Crl.) 334; (3) Sanat Kumar Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1984 Crl.L.J 931 and (4) Mohd, Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R 1979 S.C 564, the mere possession of drugs without the evidence to show that they were stocked for sale or distribution may not attract the relevant penal Section.
13. As noted above, the prosecution has relied upon Ex.P-2 confession statement, which has been subsequently retracted by the accused in Ex.P-7 reply.
14. Under those circumstances, merely on the basis of Ex.P-2 confession statement, it cannot be said that the offence alleged against the accused is proved. Therefore, the acquittal is liable to be sustained.
15. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
Alert