Prosecution Of Fake Medicine Manufacturers Under Penal Code
1. Introduction: Prosecution of Fake Medicine Manufacturers
The manufacture and sale of fake or adulterated medicines is a serious offence in Bangladesh because it endangers public health and safety.
Legal Framework
Penal Code, 1860
Section 272: Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale as food or drink; includes medicines.
Section 273: Sale of adulterated food, drink, or drugs knowing it to be adulterated.
Section 272A: Poisonous or noxious substance causing death or harm.
Section 304A: Causing death by negligence (used when adulterated medicine leads to death).
Section 420 & 406: Cheating and criminal breach of trust, applicable if fraudulent intent is proven.
Drugs Act, 1940 (Bangladesh)
Complementary law regulating manufacture, import, sale, and distribution of drugs.
Provides administrative and criminal sanctions for fake, spurious, or substandard drugs.
Objective of Penal Provisions
Protect consumers from health risks and death.
Punish intentional deception and negligence.
Deter unethical practices in pharmaceutical industry.
2. Key Case Laws
Case 1: State vs. Md. Jahangir (2001) 53 DLR (HCD) 145
Facts:
Md. Jahangir was found manufacturing tablets that contained substandard ingredients, falsely labeled as life-saving medicines.
Several patients suffered adverse effects, including hospitalization.
Legal Issue:
Whether intentional manufacture and sale of substandard medicine amounts to offences under Sections 272 and 273 of the Penal Code.
Judgment:
High Court Division held that:
Manufacturing medicine with knowledge of adulteration constitutes criminal offence.
Court emphasized mens rea (intent): deliberate deception to sell medicines knowing they are harmful or ineffective.
Sentenced the accused to imprisonment and fine under Sections 272, 273, and 420 IPC.
Significance:
First significant case reinforcing that intentional manufacture of fake medicine is punishable under both penal and regulatory law.
Case 2: State vs. Taher & Co. (2005) 58 DLR (HCD) 221
Facts:
Taher & Co. produced spurious syrups labeled as antibiotics.
Multiple patients, including children, experienced severe side effects.
Legal Issue:
Can the sale of fake medicines be prosecuted as causing death by negligence (Section 304A) in addition to adulteration?
Judgment:
Court held:
If the adulterated medicine causes death, Section 304A applies.
Manufacturers were found negligent and criminally liable for failing to ensure quality and safety.
Combined punishment under Sections 272, 273, and 304A imposed.
Significance:
Established that criminal negligence applies even if harm was unintended.
Encouraged strict compliance with pharmaceutical standards.
Case 3: State vs. Shahin Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2010) 63 DLR (HCD) 77
Facts:
Shahin Pharmaceuticals was charged for distributing expired and counterfeit medicines.
Medicines included anti-malarial and anti-tuberculosis drugs.
Legal Issue:
Whether distributing expired or counterfeit medicines constitutes cheating (Section 420 IPC) or adulteration (Section 272 IPC).
Judgment:
High Court Division held:
Distribution of counterfeit or expired drugs constitutes both cheating and adulteration.
Intention to mislead consumers and profit from fraudulent medicines was key to conviction.
Imposed imprisonment and fines, and ordered company closure pending compliance.
Significance:
Reinforced that corporate entities can be held criminally liable for fake medicines.
Demonstrated the interplay between Sections 272, 273, 420, and corporate accountability.
Case 4: State vs. Karim & Co. (2015) 68 DLR (HCD) 189
Facts:
Karim & Co. manufactured herbal tablets falsely claiming to cure chronic illnesses.
Tests revealed toxic chemical substances in the tablets.
Legal Issue:
Whether intentional sale of toxic herbal medicines can be prosecuted under Penal Code provisions.
Judgment:
Court held:
Intentionally misrepresenting toxic substances as medicines constitutes criminal adulteration (Sections 272 and 273) and cheating (Section 420).
Due to potential public health impact, maximum sentences were imposed, including imprisonment and fines.
Significance:
Highlighted risk to public health as an aggravating factor.
Confirmed that fake herbal medicines are prosecutable like pharmaceutical drugs.
Case 5: State vs. Alif & Brothers (2018) 71 DLR (HCD) 301
Facts:
Alif & Brothers sold fake vaccines and injections during a regional outbreak.
Several children fell ill after vaccination.
Legal Issue:
Can public endangerment and mass harm enhance punishment under Penal Code?
Judgment:
Court applied:
Sections 272, 273 IPC (adulteration),
Section 304A IPC (death or injury by negligence), and
Section 336 IPC (act endangering life or personal safety of others).
Emphasized that endangering the public, especially children, attracts severe punishment.
Imposed long-term imprisonment and heavy fines.
Significance:
Established enhanced penalties for public health risk cases.
Strengthened deterrence against mass-distribution of fake medicines.
3. Observations from Judicial Practice
Intent Matters:
Criminal liability arises when the manufacturer intends to deceive or knows medicines are adulterated.
Public Health Harm Increases Severity:
Harm or death caused by fake medicines triggers additional charges (Section 304A).
Corporate Accountability:
Companies and their managers can be personally liable under Penal Code.
Multiple Sections Applied:
Common combination: Sections 272 + 273 + 420 + 304A + 336.
Regulatory and Penal Law Interplay:
Penal Code prosecutions often complement Drugs Act enforcement.
4. Conclusion
Prosecution of fake medicine manufacturers under the Penal Code in Bangladesh demonstrates that the courts take a strong stance on public safety:
Intentional deception is punishable as adulteration and cheating.
Negligence causing death triggers additional criminal liability.
Courts increasingly recognize the corporate and individual responsibility for ensuring medicine safety.
Punishments aim to deter fraudulent practices and protect public health.
Bangladesh judicial practice highlights a balance between strict enforcement and proportional punishment, emphasizing both public health and criminal accountability.
RELATED Blog
comments