Palani vs. State of Tamil Nadu [February 14, 2024]
The case involved Palani, who operated a clinic in Tamil Nadu. On October 13, 2015, state drug control officials inspected his clinic and discovered 29 types of allopathic medicines meant for distribution without a valid license. Palani could not produce documentation regarding the source of procurement for these medicines. Consequently, a complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging violations of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Trial and Appellate Proceedings
The Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted Palani under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii) (manufacture, sale, or distribution of drugs without a license) and Section 18A read with Section 28 (failure to disclose the source of drugs) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
He was sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000 for the first offence, and six months’ simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹20,000 for the second, with sentences to run concurrently. An additional cost was imposed for newspaper publication under Section 35 of the Act.
On appeal, the Additional District & Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii), but upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 18A read with Section 28.
Palani’s criminal revision to the Madras High Court was dismissed, with the High Court affirming the lower appellate court’s findings.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, led by Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, reviewed the scope of revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing it is limited and not akin to appellate review. The Court found no perversity or manifest error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
The Court noted that the evidence—including the discovery of medicines without a license and Palani’s failure to disclose their source—was sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 18A read with Section 28 of the Act.
The Court also referenced the principle that unless there is a glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice, revisional courts should not interfere with concurrent factual findings.
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed Palani’s appeal, upholding his conviction and sentence under Section 18A read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Court confirmed that the revisional court had acted within its jurisdiction and found no reason to interfere with the lower courts’ well-reasoned orders.
Significance
This judgment reinforces the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction in criminal matters and the importance of regulatory compliance in the sale and distribution of drugs. It also clarifies that failure to disclose the source of drugs and lack of proper licensing are serious offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, justifying criminal conviction and penalty.
Citation:
Palani vs. State of Tamil Nadu, [2024] 2 Supreme 340; LAWS(SC)-2024-2-25, Supreme Court of India, decided on February 14, 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments