Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Drug Sale Without License: State vs. Manimaran (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: November 30, 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 1057

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a person be convicted for selling drugs without a valid license based on their own admission, even if the previous owners of the shop are not examined as witnesses? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning violations of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Court overturned a High Court decision, reinstating the conviction of a man who was found selling drugs without the necessary license. This judgment underscores the importance of strict adherence to drug regulations and the validity of admissions as evidence in legal proceedings. The judgment was authored by Justice R. Banumathi, with Justice Indira Banerjee concurring.

Case Background

The case began with an inspection of M/s. Sri Balaji Medicals, a medical shop run by Manimaran (the respondent), on December 17, 2008. The inspection, conducted by Drugs Inspectors under the direction of the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Salem Zone, revealed that Manimaran was storing drugs without a valid drug license. Consequently, a memo dated December 22, 2008, was issued to Manimaran, alleging a violation of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Manimaran responded to the memo but did not provide details of his drug purchases. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against Manimaran for offenses punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The trial court, after reviewing the evidence, including Manimaran’s admission that he lacked a valid license, convicted him. The court also held that carbon copies of documents could be considered primary evidence under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act. Manimaran was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 28 of the Act. Manimaran’s appeal to the appellate court was dismissed, but the High Court reversed the conviction, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Manimaran based on his admission that he did not have a valid license to sell drugs, and also held that carbon copies of documents could be considered as primary evidence. The appellate court upheld this conviction. However, the High Court reversed the conviction, stating that the non-examination of the previous owners of the pharmacy, Jayanthi and Kamalakannan, was fatal to the prosecution’s case. The High Court also considered the defense that Manimaran’s signature was obtained on blank papers.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions at play in this case are drawn from the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

• Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: This section prohibits the sale or stocking of drugs for sale without a valid license. It states, “From the date as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale, or distribute any drug or cosmetic, except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Chapter.”

• Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: This section prescribes the punishment for contravention of Section 18(c), with a minimum imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000. It states, “whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes any drug or cosmetic in contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder 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.”

• Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: This section deals with penalties for not disclosing the name of the supplier of the drug.

• Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act: This section defines primary evidence, which includes carbon copies.

The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, is a social statute designed to ensure that drugs are sold only by licensed individuals and that adulterated drugs are not sold, thus protecting public health.

Arguments

The appellant, represented by the State, argued that the High Court had failed to consider that Manimaran was selling drugs without a valid license and had not disclosed the name of his drug supplier, both of which are punishable offenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The State also contended that the High Court erred in reversing the conviction based on the defense that Manimaran’s signature was obtained on blank papers, a claim that Manimaran failed to prove. The prosecution emphasized Manimaran’s admission in Ex.-P4 as crucial evidence, rendering the non-examination of Kamalakannan and Jayanthi inconsequential.

The respondent, Manimaran, argued that the prosecution had failed to prove that he was the owner of M/s Sri Balaji Medicals. He further contended that the non-examination of Kamalakannan and Jayanthi was detrimental to the prosecution’s case. Manimaran also argued that the statements in Exs. P-4, P-7, and P-10, relied upon by the prosecution, were merely carbon copies and should not have been the basis of his conviction.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was right in reversing the conviction of the respondent on the ground of non-examination of Kamalakannan and Jayanthi.
2. Whether the High Court was right in holding that the carbon copies of the documents (Exs. P-4, P-7, and P-10) could not be considered as primary evidence.
3. Whether the High Court was right in holding that the signatures of the respondent were obtained on blank papers.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, reinstating the conviction of Manimaran. The Court held that the High Court had erred in reversing the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court.

The Court also considered the authorities as follows:

• Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940* was considered to understand the requirement of a valid license for selling drugs.

• Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940* was considered to understand the punishment for selling drugs without a license.

• Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940* was considered to understand the penalties for not disclosing the name of the supplier of the drug.

• Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act* was considered to understand that carbon copies can be considered as primary evidence.

• The case of State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452* was followed to emphasize that the High Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the respondent’s own admissions in Exs. P-4 and P-7, where he acknowledged that he was selling drugs without a valid license. The Court also emphasized the importance of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as a social statute designed to protect public health by ensuring drugs are sold only by licensed individuals. The concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court also weighed heavily in the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court considered and rejected the argument that the signatures of the respondent were obtained on blank papers, noting that the respondent did not file any complaint regarding this. The Court also rejected the argument that the carbon copies of the documents were not admissible as evidence, citing Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Supreme Court stated, “In Ex.-P4, the respondent thus admitted having purchased the shop from Jayanthi and that he had no licence for sale of drugs either in his name or in any other name.” Also, “In the light of the admission of the respondent in Exs.P-4 and P-7, non-examination of licence holder Kamalakannan and shop owner Jayanthi was not fatal to the prosecution case.” Further, the court noted, “When there is concurrent findings by the courts below, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

✓ Admissions made by an accused can be crucial evidence in legal proceedings.

✓ Carbon copies of documents are admissible as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act.

✓ The High Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse.

✓ It is mandatory to have a valid license to sell drugs.

✓ The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, is a social statute designed to protect public health.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed upon the respondent is reduced to three months, while maintaining the fine of Rs. 5,000. The respondent was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence, failing which he would be taken into custody.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an admission by the accused regarding the commission of an offense is sufficient evidence for conviction, even if other witnesses are not examined. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and upholds the validity of admissions as evidence. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment reaffirms the existing legal principles and their application in cases involving drug sale without a license.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in State vs. Manimaran upholds the conviction of an individual for selling drugs without a valid license, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to drug regulations and the validity of admissions as evidence. The Court’s decision reinforces the role of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, in protecting public health and underscores the significance of concurrent findings by lower courts. This case serves as a reminder of the legal consequences of violating drug laws and the importance of obtaining necessary licenses before engaging in the sale of drugs.