Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Doctor Accused Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act
The Supreme Court in the case of S. Athilakshmi v. The State Rep. by the Drugs Inspector has ruled in favor of a medical practitioner accused of violating the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The appellant, a dermatologist and associate professor at a government medical college, faced criminal proceedings for allegedly stocking and selling medicines without a valid drug license.
The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence and legal provisions, found that the appellant was protected under Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which exempts registered medical practitioners from requiring a drug license for supplying medicines to their patients. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that no offense was made out under Section 18(c) of the Act.
Background of the Case
Dr. S. Athilakshmi, a registered medical practitioner and Head of Dermatology at Government Omandurar Medical College, Chennai, was carrying out her private medical practice at her consultation clinic in Villivakkam, Chennai.
On March 16, 2016, a surprise inspection was conducted by the Drugs Inspector, Villivakkam Range, at her clinic. The inspector found small quantities of dermatological medicines in her inner consultation room and seized them, alleging that she was stocking drugs for sale without a valid license.
Subsequently, a complaint was filed before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, punishable under Section 27(b)(ii). Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a petition in the Madras High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings, but her petition was dismissed. She then approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments by the Parties
Arguments by the Appellant (Dr. S. Athilakshmi)
- She is a registered medical practitioner with a valid license to practice medicine and prescribe drugs.
- The medicines found at her clinic were for emergency patient use and not for sale.
- Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, exempts registered medical practitioners from requiring a license to supply medicines to their patients.
- The prosecution failed to provide any evidence proving the sale of medicines across the counter.
- The delay in obtaining sanction for prosecution (nearly two years) showed a lack of due diligence by the authorities.
Arguments by the Respondent (State of Tamil Nadu)
- The Drugs Inspector found medicines in the consultation room, which indicated that they were being stocked for sale.
- The presence of sales bills at the clinic proved that medicines were being sold without a valid license.
- The Madras High Court had rightly refused to quash the proceedings as the issue required a trial.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis
Applicability of Schedule K Exemption
The Supreme Court emphasized that registered medical practitioners are permitted to supply medicines to their own patients under Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The Court stated:
“It is not a case where the appellant had opened a shop and was selling drugs across the counter. The quantity of medicines found was minimal and well within the permissible limits under the law.”
Failure to Prove Intent to Sell
The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish that the medicines were being sold rather than merely supplied to patients. It noted:
“Mere possession of medicines by a registered medical practitioner does not amount to stocking for sale. The prosecution must prove that the appellant was engaged in the commercial sale of drugs, which is absent in this case.”
Unexplained Delay in Prosecution
The Supreme Court also took note of the delay in obtaining sanction for prosecution, stating:
“The unexplained delay of nearly two years between the inspection and the sanction for prosecution raises serious doubts about the bona fides of the case.”
Comparison with Previous Cases
The Court cited the judgment in Mohd. Shabir v. State of Maharashtra, where it was held that mere possession of drugs does not constitute an offense unless it is proven that they were stocked for sale. The ruling reaffirmed that:
“Possession simpliciter of drugs by a doctor is not an offense. The prosecution must prove that the accused was selling or distributing medicines illegally, which has not been demonstrated in this case.”
Final Judgment
Based on the above findings, the Supreme Court ruled:
- The criminal proceedings against the appellant were quashed.
- The prosecution had failed to prove that the appellant was selling drugs without a license.
- The appellant was entitled to protection under Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.
Impact of the Judgment
- Protects Medical Practitioners: The ruling clarifies that doctors cannot be prosecuted for merely possessing medicines for patient use.
- Limits Misuse of Drug Laws: The judgment ensures that laws intended to regulate drug sales are not misapplied against legitimate medical practitioners.
- Prevents Unwarranted Prosecutions: The case highlights the need for authorities to conduct proper investigations before initiating criminal proceedings.
- Clarifies Legal Provisions: The Court reaffirmed that registered doctors are permitted to supply medicines to their own patients without requiring a drug license.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in S. Athilakshmi v. The State Rep. by the Drugs Inspector sets a crucial precedent in protecting medical practitioners from arbitrary prosecutions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. By recognizing the exemptions provided under Schedule K, the Court has reinforced the rights of doctors while ensuring that regulatory authorities do not misuse their powers. This ruling will serve as a guiding principle for similar cases in the future.
Petitioner Name: S. Athilakshmi.Respondent Name: The State Rep. by the Drugs Inspector.Judgment By: Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.Place Of Incident: Chennai.Judgment Date: 15-03-2023.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: s.-athilakshmi-vs-the-state-rep.-by-th-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-15-03-2023.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Medical Malpractice
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Krishna Murari
See all petitions in Judgment by Sudhanshu Dhulia
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
