Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
4. It is the admitted fact in the case under revision that the medicines detailed by the Drugs Inspector in Exs. Ka-2A and Ka-2B were kept in an Almirah which bore an indication to the effect that its conterts were not for sale.
5. Rule 65 (17) of the Rules framed by the Govt. under the Provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, runs as follows:
No drug shall be sold or stocked by the licensee after the date of expiration of potency recorded on its container, label or wrapper, or in violation of any statement or direction recorded on such container, label or wrapper.:
Provided that any such drugs in respect of which the licensee has taken steps with the manufacturer or his representative for the withdrawal, reimbursement or disposal of the same, may be stocked after the date of expiration of potency pending such withdrawal, reimbursement or disposal, as the case may be, subject to the condition that the same shall be stored separately from the trade stocks and all such drugs shall be kept in packages or cartons, the top of which shall display prominently the words 'Not for Sale'.
6. It was argued on behalf of the State that the above noted proviso to the Rule prohibits every stocking of expired date medicines by a licensee except for the purpose mentioned therein namely, for claiming withdrawal, reimbursement or disposal with the manufacturer. I am not prepared to accept this argument. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has been enacted to regulate the import, manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs and cosmetics. Its main object is to prevent low standard in drugs presumably for maintaining high standards of medicinal treatment. If expired date medicines are permitted to be sold to needy persons, they cannot have the desired effect as their efficacy is expected to have been lost through lapse of the period during which the same are expected to maintain their potency. In view of that purpose and object of the Act, the word 'stock' used in Rule 65 (17) obviously means 'stock for sale'. In Public Prosecutor v. Mahavir Prasad 1972 Cri LJ 1546 (Andh Pra) it has been held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the word 'stock' occurring in Rule 65 (17) means 'stock for sale'. I agree with that interpretation of the word 'stock' used in the aforesaid rule. While Interpreting Rule 110 of the Rules framed by the Government under the provisions of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 it was held by this Court also in Virendra Singh v. State 1968 All WR (HC) 78 that mere stocking of a medicine is not an offence unless that stocking is for sale or the medicine concerned has been exhibited for sale.