{"id":151126,"date":"1981-01-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1981-01-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981"},"modified":"2017-02-03T21:53:44","modified_gmt":"2017-02-03T16:23:44","slug":"rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981","title":{"rendered":"Rajasthan Pharmaceutical … vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 1981"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rajasthan Pharmaceutical … vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 1981<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 809, \t\t 1981 SCR (2) 604<\/div>\n
Author: A Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, A.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAJASTHAN PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORY, BANGALORE AND TWOOTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/01\/1981\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR  809\t\t  1981 SCR  (2) 604\n 1981 SCC  (1) 645\t  1981 SCALE  (1)139\n\n\nACT:\n     Drugs and\tCosmetics Act,\t1940-Offences under  sec. 18\n(c), (Sale  without licence);  under sec. 18(a)(i), (Selling\nsub-standard quality  drugs); under  sec. 28 (non-disclosure\nof source  of purchase\tof drugs  exhibited for\t sale);\t and\nunder  sec.   18(a)(vi),   (disposing\tof   drugs   against\nprohibitory orders)  under sec. 22(1)(c) of the Act and Rule\n54A of\tthe rules  framed thereunder-Sentences\tvalidity of-\nVicarious liability  of partners  under sec.  34 of the Act-\nFine ordered  in excess\t of the statutory maximum under sec.\n18A is\tnot in\torder-Whether  the  additional\tsentence  of\nimprisonment on\t one of the accused for the same offence was\nillegal-Plea of\t ignorance about  the  sub-standard  quality\nwould be  a valid  defence only\t as provided by sub-see. (2)\nand (3)\t of sec. 19 of the Act-Sec. 22(1)(c) of the Act does\nnot provided  for a  separate punishment in addition to sec.\n27(b) of the Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     M\/s.   Rajasthan\tPharmaceutical\t Laboratory,   first\nappellant in  Criminal Appeal  No. 120\tof 1975 is a firm of\nwhich the  second appellant  is\t a  partner  and  the  third\nappellant is  a manager. The first appellant holds a licence\nunder the  Drugs and  Cosmetics Act,  1940 for re-packing of\ndrugs mentioned\t in the list which forms part of the licence\nand, therefore,\t is a manufacturer of the said drugs for the\npurposes of  the Act  in view  of the definition of the term\n\"manufacture\" occurring\t in sec. 3(f) of the Act. The second\nand the\t third appellant  are also  a partner  and a manager\nrespectively of the first appellant, M\/s. Manoj Drug House &\nothers, in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1975.\n     A search  of the  business premises  in Criminal Appeal\n120 of\t1975  resulted\tin  seizure  of\t sub-standard  drug,\n\"Sodium Bromide\t I.P.\" Batch No. 1 and in Criminal Appeal 96\nof 1975 of a sub-standard drug \"Liquid Paraffin I.P. 450 ml.\nBatch No. 1'.\n     Besides the  three appellants  in\tthese  two  appeals,\nanother partner\t of these two firms figured as an accused in\nthe complaint  but as  he was absconding the trial could not\nproceed against\t him. In  Criminal Appeal  120 of  1975\t the\nappellants were\t charged under\tsections 18(c), 18(a)(1) and\n28 of  the Drugs  and Cosmetics\t Act, 1940  and in  Criminal\nAppeal 96  of 1975 they were charged under sections 18(a)(i)\nand 18(a)(ii).\n     The appellants  in both  the appeals  were acquitted by\nthe trial  court. But in appeals preferred by the State, the\nHigh Court in Criminal Appeal 120 of 1975, sentenced each of\nthe three  appellants to  pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 on each of\nthe counts  in default\tappellants Nos.\t 2  and\t 3  were  to\nundergo simple\timprisonment for three months \"for each non-\npayment of  line\". For\tthe same  offences  the\t High  Court\nfurther sentenced  the third  appellant \"by  virtue of\tsec.\n34(2) of  the Act  to undergo  simple imprisonment for three\nmonths on each\n605\ncount and  to pay  a fine  of Rs.  500 on  each count and in\ndefault of  payment to simple imprisonment for one month for\n\"each non-payment of fine\". The substantive sentences passed\non the third appellant were directed to run concurrently. In\nCriminal Appeal\t 96 of\t1975 the  High Court  convicted\t the\naccused under sec. 18(a)(i) and sec. 18(a)(vi) and sentenced\neach of\t them to  pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each count, the\nsecond and  the third  appellants  were\t to  undergo  simple\nimprisonment for  one month  in default of payment. The High\nCourt further  convicted  them\t\"for  having  committed\t the\noffence punishable  under sec. 22(1)(c)\" and sentenced \"each\none of the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 for the offence\nunder sec. 22(1)(c)\".\n     Allowing  both   the  appeals  in\tpart  and  remanding\nCriminal Appeal\t 120 of\t 1975 to  the High  Court for proper\nsentences, the Court.\n^\n     HELD: (1)\tThe additional\tsentence of  imprisonment on\nthe third  appellant for the same offence is illegal. But in\nsentencing the second and the third appellants to pay a fine\nonly for  the offence  under sec.  18(c); the  provisions of\nsec. 27\t (a) (ii)  which make  a  sentence  of\timprisonment\ncompulsory has been overlooked. [612B]\n     (2) Sec.  27(a) (ii)  of the  Act makes  a sentence  of\nimprisonment of\t not less  than one  year compulsory  for an\noffence under  s. 18(c)\t in  addition  to  fine\t unless\t for\nspecial reasons\t a sentence  of imprisonment  for  a  lesser\nperiod was  warranted. Of  course, in the nature of things a\ncompany or  a firm  could not  be sent to jail but that does\nnot apply  to the  other two appellants in the instant case.\n[611E-F]\n     (3) By  virtue of sec. 34(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics\nAct, the  appellants 2 and 3 are accused to be guilty of the\noffences  committed   by  the\tfirst  appellant,   as\t the\nexplanation appended  to sec.  34 makes its provisions apply\nto a firm and its partners. [611A-B]\n     (4) The  non-obstante clause with which sub-sec. (2) of\nsec. 34\t begins does  not permit  the court  to\t punish\t the\noffender twice\tfor the\t same offence. It is plain that sec.\n34(2) imposes  a liability on those directors or officers of\nthe company who are not directly in charge of the management\nof the company and as such could not be held guilty with the\nhelp of\t sub-section (1) of sec.34, if they were responsible\nfor the commission of the offences by consent, connivance or\nneglect. It  would be  incongruous if  a  man  found  to  be\ndirectly responsible for the commission of the offence could\nat the\tsame time  be held  guilty of  contributing  to\t the\ncommission of  the offence  by his  consent,  connivance  or\nneglect. [611 B-C]\n     There is  nothing in the language of sec. 34 to warrant\na construction,\t that the  words \"punished  accordingly\"  in\nclause (2)  of sec.  34 of  the Act  mean that\tthe  persons\nmentioned therein  can be punished only in the same way as a\ncompany would  be punishable,  that is, only with a fine and\nnot with  an imprisonment.  The words \"punished accordingly\"\nin the\tcontext mean that a person deemed to be guilty of an\noffence committed  by a company shall receive the punishment\nthat is prescribed by the Act for that offence. [611G]\n     The State\tof Maharashtra\tv. Joseph  Anthony  Pereira,\n(1971) 73 B.L.R. 613, overruled.\n606\n     (6) For  the contravention\t of provisions\tof sec. 18A,\nsec. 28\t prescribed imprisonment for a term which may extend\nto one\tyear or\t with fine  which may extend to five hundred\nrupees or  with both. Clearly therefore no fine in excess of\nfive hundred  rupees could  be imposed\tfor an offence under\nsec. 18A.  The imposition  of a\t fine of  Rs. 2,000  for the\noffence under sec. 18A which is punishable under sec. 28, in\nthe instant case, is not in order. [611H]\n     (7) The  plea of ignorance of the nature, sub-stance or\nquality of the drug in view of the fact that accused got the\nsupplies  of   these   drugs   from   the   firm   Rajasthan\nPharmaceutical Laboratory,  who are the packers, is not only\nnot covered  by sub-sec.  (2)  and  (3)\t of  sec.  19  which\nenumerate the  cases in which general rule continued in sub-\nsec. (1)  would not  apply,  but  also\tfactually  incorrect\nbecause appellants  2 and  3 in\t Criminal Appeal 96 of 1975,\nare respectively  a partner  and the  manager  of  both\t the\nfirms, Rajasthan  Pharmaceutical Laboratory  and Manoj\tDrug\nHouse. [613 F-H]\n     (8) Sec.  22(1)(c) does  not  provide  for\t a  separate\npunishment. Rule 54A of the rules framed under the Drugs and\nCosmetics Act  prohibits contravention\tof  the\t prohibitory\norder made  under sec.\t22(1)(c) and sec. 27(b) itself makes\nsuch contravention punishable with imprisonment or with fine\nor with both. [614 G-H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION :\t Criminal Appeal No.
\n120 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 29-1-1975\t of the\t Karnataka High\t Court\tin  Criminal
\nAppeal No. 274\/74.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    AND
\n     Writ Petition No. 2929 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution).\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    AND
\n     Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 13-9-1974\t of the\t Karnataka High\t Court\tin  Criminal
\nAppeal No. 168\/74.\n<\/p>\n
     S. K. Bisaria for the appellant in Cr. A. No. 96\/75.
\n     A. K. Sen and S. K. Bisaria for the appellant in Cr. A.
\n120\/75 and for the Petitioner in W.P. 2929\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     N. Nettar for the respondent in all the matters.\n<\/p>\n
607<\/span><\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t      Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1975
\n     GUPTA, J.-\t This is  an appeal  by special leave from a
\njudgment of the Karnataka High Court by which the High Court
\nset aside  the acquittal  of the  three appellants before us
\nordered by  the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, (4th Court),
\nBangalore and  convicted them  of various  offence under the
\nDrugs and  Cosmetics Act,  1940 (hereinafter  referred to as
\nthe Act).  The first appellant M\/s. Rajasthan Pharmaceutical
\nLaboratory is  a firm  of which\t the second  appellant is  a
\npartner and  the third\tappellant is  the Manager. The first
\nappellant holds\t a licence  under the  Act for\trepacking of
\ndrugs mentioned in the list which forms part of the licence.
\nFor  purposes\tof  the\t  Act  the   first  appellant  is  a
\nmanufacturer of\t the said drugs in view of the definition of
\nthe term  ‘manufacture’ occurring in section 3(f) of the Act
\nwhich is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “manufacture in  relation to\tany drug or cosmetic
\n     includes any  process or  part of a process for making,
\n     altering, ornamenting,  finishing, packing,  labelling,
\n     breaking up  or otherwise treating or adopting any drug
\n     or cosmetic  with a  view to  its sale and distribution
\n     but does  not include  the compounding or dispensing of
\n     any drug, or the packing of any drug or cosmetic in the
\n     ordinary\tcourse\t of   retail   business;   and\t ‘to
\n     manufacture’ shall be construed accordingly;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On February 27, 1970 on a search of the business premises of
\nthe first  appellant, a\t Drugs Inspector  seized 42 items of
\ndrugs from a room, 33 of which were not in the approved list
\nof drugs  appended  to\tthe  licence  issued  to  the  first
\nappellant. The\tthird appellant\t who is\t the Manager  of the
\nfirm and  was present  during the  search failed to disclose
\nthe source  from which\tthese drugs  had been acquired. To a
\nnotice issued  under section 18A of the Act calling upon the
\nfirst appellant to disclose the source of acquisition of the
\ndrugs seized,  the reply,  signed by  the third appellant on
\nbehalf of  the firm, was a denial of the fact that the drugs
\nwere found  in their  possession and  that they were seized.
\nSamples were  taken from the seized drugs which were sent to
\nthe Government Analyst and from his report it was found that
\none of\tthe drugs,  Sodium Bromide I.P. Batch No. 1 was sub-
\nstandard. On the aforesaid facts the Drugs Inspector filed a
\ncomplaint in  the court\t of the\t Judicial Magistrate,  First
\nClass (4th  Court), Bangalore  alleging that  the appellants
\nbefore us  were guilty\tof having  committed offences  under
\nsections 18(c),\t 18(a)(i) and  18A  punishable\trespectively
\nunder sections\t27(a)(ii), 27(b)  and 28 of the Act. Another
\npartner of  the firm  also figured  as\tan  accused  in\t the
\ncomplaint but as he was absconding the trial could
\n608<\/span>
\nnot proceed  against him.  As already  stated the magistrate
\nacquitted the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     On the facts on record the High Court found:\n<\/p>\n
     (a) 33  out of  the 42  items of  drugs seized from the
\nbusiness premises  of the  first appellant  do not figure in
\nthe approved  list of  drugs which forms part of the licence
\nissued to  the first appellant. These 33 items had been kept
\nin the premises for sale without the requisite licence. This
\nconstitutes an\toffence under  section 18(c)  of the Act for
\nwhich all  the appellants are punishable under section 27(a)\n<\/p>\n
(ii).\n<\/p>\n
     (b) Of  the samples of the drugs seized and sent to the
\nGovernment Analyst, one sample of Sodium Bromide I. P. Batch
\nNo. 1 was found to be sub-standard. An offence under section
\n18 (a)\t(i) has\t therefore  been  committed  for  which\t the
\nappellants are punishable under section 27(b).\n<\/p>\n
     (c) The  appellants failed\t to disclose  the source  of
\nacquisition of\tthe aforesaid  33 items\t of drugs which were
\nnot in\tthe approved list. This constitutes an offence under
\nsection 18A  which makes  the  appellants  punishable  under
\nsection 28 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     For these offences the High Court sentenced each of the
\nthree appellants  to pay  a fine  of Rs. 2000 on each of the
\ncounts, in  default appellants\tnos. 2 and 3 were to undergo
\nsimple imprisonment  for three\tmonths ‘for each non-payment
\nof fine’.  For the  same offences  the\tHigh  Court  further
\nsentenced the  third appellant “by virtue of section 34 (2)”
\nof the\tAct to\tundergo simple imprisonment for three months
\non each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 on each count, in
\ndefault of  payment to simple imprisonment for one month for
\n‘each non-payment of fine’. The substantive sentences passed
\non the third appellant were directed to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
     The only  contention raised  before us by Mr. A. K. Sen
\nfor the\t appellants was\t that  the  additional\tsentence  of
\nimprisonment on\t the third  appellant for  the same offences
\nwas  illegal.\tMr.  Sen’s   contention\t is  right.  But  in
\nsentencing the second and the third appellants to pay a fine
\nonly for  the offence  under section  18(c), the  High Court
\nappears to  have overlooked the provisions of section 27 (a)\n<\/p>\n
(ii) which makes a sentence of imprisonment compulsory.\n<\/p>\n
     Chapter IV\t of the\t Act, headed  “Manufacture, Sale and
\nDistribution of\t Drugs and Cosmetics” includes section 16 of
\nsection 33A.  Section 18  provides inter  alia :  “no person
\nshall himself or by any other person on his behalf:\n<\/p>\n
609<\/span><\/p>\n
     (a)  Manufacture for sale, or sell, or stock or exhibit
\n\t  for sale or distribute-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i)  any drug or cosmetic which is not of standard
\n\t       quality:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)\t    x\t\tx\t   x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  manufacture for sale, or sell, or stock or exhibit
\n\t  for sale  or\tdistribute  any\t drug  or  cosmetic,
\n\t  except  under,   and\tin   accordance\t  with\t the
\n\t  conditions of a licence issued………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  x\t       x\t   x
\nSection 18A in these terms:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “Disclosure of the name of manufacture:-
\n     Every person  not being  the manufacturer\tof a drug or
\n     cosmetic or  his agent  for the  distribution  thereof,
\n     shall, if\tso required,  disclose to  the Inspector the
\n     name, address  and other particulars of the person from
\n     whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section\t 27  which  enumerates\tthe  penalties\tfor  illegal
\nmanufacture, sale, etc of drugs reads-\n<\/p>\n
     “Whoever himself  or by  any other person on his behalf
\n     manufactures for  sale, sells,  stocks or\texhibits for
\n     sale or distributes-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  any drug-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (i)\t     x\t\tx\t  x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (ii) without  a\tvalid  licence\tas  required
\n\t\t    under clause (c) of section 18.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     shall be  punishable with imprisonment for a term which
\n     shall not be less than one year but which may extend to
\n     ten years and shall also be liable to fine:
\n\t  Provided that\t the  Court  may,  for\tany  special
\n     reasons to be recorded in writing, impose a sentence of
\n     imprisonment of less than one year;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) any  drug other  than a  drug referred  to  in
\n     clause (a) in contravention of any of the provisions of
\n     this Chapter  or any  rule\t made  thereunder  shall  be
\n     punishable with  imprisonment  for\t a  term  which\t may
\n     extend to three years, or with fine or with both.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
610<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 28  provides for  “penalty for non-disclosure of the
\nname of the manufacturer etc.” and states
\n\t  “Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 18A
\n     shall be  punishable with imprisonment for a term which
\n     may extend\t to one\t year, or with fine which may extend
\n     to five hundred rupees, or with both.”\n<\/p>\n
     In this  case the\toffences mentioned  above  had\tbeen
\ncommitted   by the  appellant firm  which was engaged in the
\nbusiness of repacking of drugs. In view of the definition of
\nthe term  ‘manufacture’ in section 3(f), packing amounted to
\nmanufacture in\trelation to  the said drugs for the purposes
\nof the\tAct. It\t is necessary  to refer to the provisions of
\nsection 34  of the Act which creates vicarious liability for
\nan offence  under the  Act committed  by  a  body  corporate
\nincluding a firm:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “34. (1)  Where an offence under this Act has been
\n     committed by a company every person who at the time the
\n     offence was  committed,  was  in  charge  of,  and\t was
\n     responsible to  the company  for  the  conduct  of\t the
\n     business of  the company,\tas well as the company shall
\n     be deemed\tto be  guilty of  the offence  and shall  be
\n     liable   to   be\tproceeded   against   and   punished
\n     accordingly:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided  that   nothing  contained  in  this\t sub
\n     section shall  render any\tsuch person  liable  to\t any
\n     punishment provided  in this  Act if he proves that the
\n     offence was  committed without his Knowledge or that he
\n     exercised all  due diligence  to prevent the commission
\n     of such offence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2) Notwithstanding  anything\t contained  in\tsub-
\n     section (1),  where an  offence under this Act has been
\n     committed by  a company  and  it  is  proved  that\t the
\n     offence  has   been  committed   with  the\t consent  or
\n     connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the
\n     part of,  any director,  manager,\tsecretary  or  other
\n     officer  of   the\tcompany,   such\t director,  manager,
\n     secretary or  other officer  shall also be deemed to be
\n     guilty of\tthat offence  and  shall  be  liable  to  be
\n     proceeded against and punished accordingly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Explanation.- For the purpose of this section-\n<\/p>\n
\t  (a)  ‘company’  means\t  a  body   corporate,\t and
\n\t       includes\t a  firm  or  other  association  of
\n\t       individuals; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  ‘director’ in  relation to  a  firm  means  a
\n\t       partner in the firm.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
611<\/span><\/p>\n
     The High  Court held  and rightly\tthat “by  virtue  of
\nsection 34(1)  of the Act, it will have to be held that both
\nrespondents 2  and 3 [present appellants 2 and 3] are deemed
\nto be guilty of these offences committed by respondent No. 1
\n[the first  appellant  in  this\t Court]”.  In  view  of\t the
\nexplanation appended to section 34 its provisions will apply
\nto a  firm and\tits partners.  But having  found  the  third
\nappellant guilty  with the aid of sub-section (1) of section
\n34, the\t High Court  appears to\t have misdirected  itself in
\nthinking that the non-obstante clause with which sub-section
\n(2) of\tthe section begins permitted the court to punish the
\nappellant twice\t for the  same offence.\t It  is\t plain\tthat
\nsection 34(2)  imposes a  liability on\tthose  directors  or
\nofficers of  the company  who were not directly in charge of
\nthe management\tof the company and as such could not be held
\nguilty with  the help  of sub-section  (1) of section 34, if
\nthey were  responsible for  the commission of the offence by
\nconsent, connivance  or neglect.  It would  also be a little
\nincongruous if\ta man  found to\t be directly responsible for
\nthe commission of the offence could at the same time be held
\nguilty of  contributing to  the commission of the offence by
\nhis consent,  connivance or  neglect. The further punishment
\nawarded to the third appellant with the aid of section 34(2)
\nis therefore  set aside.  But this  does  not  conclude\t the
\nmatter. The High Court imposed a fine of two thousand rupees
\non each\t of the\t three\tappellants  for\t the  offence  under
\nsection 18(c).\tSection\t 27(a)\t(ii)  makes  a\tsentence  of
\nimprisonment of\t not less  than one year compulsory for such
\noffence in  addition to\t fine unless  for special  reasons a
\nsentence of  imprisonment for a lesser period was warranted.
\nOf course  in the nature of things a company or a firm could
\nnot be sent to jail but that does not apply to the other two
\nappellants. Mr.\t Sen referred  to a  decision of  the Bombay
\nHigh Court reported in (1971) 73 B.L.R. 613 which holds that
\nthe words “punished accordingly” in clause (2) of section 34
\nof the\tAct mean  that the  persons mentioned therein can be
\npunished only  in  the\tsame  way  as  a  company  would  be
\npunishable,  that   is,\t only  with  a\tfine  and  not\twith
\nimprisonment. We  are unable  to agree.\t There is nothing in
\nthe language  of section  34 to warrant such a construction.
\nIt seems  clear to  us that the words “punished accordingly”
\nin the\tcontext mean that a person deemed to be guilty of an
\noffence committed  by a company shall receive the punishment
\nthat is\t prescribed by\tthe Act for that offence. It appears
\nthat the  High Court was also in error in imposing a fine of
\ntwo thousand  rupees for the offence under section 18A which
\nis punishable  under section  28. For  the contravention  of
\nprovisions   of\t  section   18A,   section   28\t  prescribes
\nimprisonment for a term which
\n612<\/span>
\nmay extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five
\nhundred rupees\tor with\t both. Clearly\ttherefore no fine in
\nexcess of  five hundred\t rupees\t could\tbe  imposed  for  an
\noffence under section 18A.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result, while maintaining the conviction of the
\nappellants, we\tremit the  case to  the High Court; the High
\nCourt will  consider again  on the findings already recorded
\nthe question  of sentence-(a)  for the offence under section
\n18(c)  punishable   under  section  27(a)  (ii)\t so  far  as
\nappellants 2  and 3  are concerned,  and (b) for the offence
\npunishable  under   section  28\t  of  which  all  the  three
\nappellants have\t been  found  guilty,-and  pass\t appropriate
\nsentences. The\tappeal is  allowed to  the extent and in the
\nmanner indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
\t       Writ Petition No. 2929 of 1980
\n     The writ  petition questions  the validity of the order
\nof the High Court punishing the third appellant in the above
\nappeal (Criminal  appeal No. 120 of 1975) twice for the same
\noffences with  the aid\tof section 34(2) of the Act. In view
\nof our\tdecision in  the appeal no order is necessary on the
\nwrit petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t       Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1975
\n     By the  judgment impugned\tin this appeal which is also
\nby special  leave, the\tKarnataka High\tCourt set  aside  an
\norder of  acquittal passed  by the  Judicial Magistrate, Ist
\nClass  (Ist   Court),  Bangalore   City\t and  convicted\t the
\nappellants before  us for  having committed  offences  under
\nsection 18(a)  (i) and 18(a) (vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics
\nAct, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Of the three
\nappellants  in\t this  appeal\tthe  second  and  the  third
\nappellants are\tthe same persons as in the other appeal. The
\nsecond appellant  is a\tpartner and the third is the manager
\nof the first appellant, a firm called M\/s. Manoj Drug House.
\nThe absconding\tpartner of  the other firm is also a partner
\nof the\tfirst  appellant  here.\t The  firm  possessed  valid
\nlicence to  sell, stock\t and exhibit  for  sale\t drugs.\t The
\nmagistrate before  whom the  appellants were  tried for\t the
\naforesaid offences  acquitted them; the High Court on appeal
\nset aside the order of acquittal as already stated.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts\tfound by  the High Court in this case are as
\nfollows. On  July 17, 1970 the Assistant Drug Controller for
\nthe State  of Mysore  who had  been appointed  as  Inspector
\nunder section 21 of the Act took samples of “Liquid Paraffin
\nI.P.” Batch  I, and  “Formaline I.P.”  Batch 1 which, as the
\nlabels on  these drugs\tshowed, had  been repacked  by\tM\/s.
\nRajasthan Pharmaceutical  Laboratory, the first appellant in
\nthe other case. The Inspector sent the samples to the
\n613<\/span>
\nGovernment Analyst  and the  report received from him showed
\nthat the products were not of standard quality. On September
\n9, 1970\t the Drugs Inspector, Bangalore Division, found that
\nthe firm  M\/s. Manoj  Drug House  was  exhibiting  for\tsale
\nstocks\tof  the\t drugs\twhich  the  Government\tAnalyst\t had
\ndeclared as  not of standard quality. He therefore issued an
\norder under section 22(1)(c) of the Act prohibiting the sale
\nof the\tsaid drugs  for a  certain period which was extended
\nfrom time  to time.  On October 28, 1970 the Inspector asked
\nthe third  appellant who  was the  Manager of  the  firm  to
\nproduce the  stock of  the prohibited  drugs. The  Inspector
\nseized the  stock produced  before him but this was found to
\nbe short by 57 bottles of Liquid Paraffin I.P. 450 ml. Batch
\nNo. 1.\tOn these facts a complaint was filed in the court of
\nthe City  Magistrate, Bangalore alleging that the appellants
\nwere guilty  of an offence under section 18(a)(i) of the Act
\nfor having  in their stock and exhibiting for sale drugs not
\nof standard  quality and further that they were guilty of an
\noffence\t under\t section  18(a)(vi)  for  disposing  of\t the
\naforesaid quantities  of Liquid Paraffin I.P. Batch No. 1 in
\nspite of  the prohibitory order under section 22(1) (c) thus
\ncontravening rule  54A of  the Rules  framed under  the Act.
\nBoth these  offences are  punishable under  section 27(b) of
\nthe Act. The trial court acquitted the accused but on appeal
\npreferred by the State of Karnataka the High Court set aside
\nthe order  of acquittal\t and  convicted\t the  accused  under
\nsection 18(a)(i)  and section  18(a)(vi), and sentenced each
\nof the\taccused to  pay a fine of Rs. 1000\/- on each count :
\nthe second  and the  third appellants were to undergo simple
\nimprisonment for  one month in default of payment. We see no
\nreason to  interfere with  the findings\t of fact recorded by
\nthe High Court. The only point argued before us on behalf of
\nthe appellants\twhich was  also urged  in the High Court was
\nthat they  got the  supplies of\t these drugs  from the\tfirm
\nRajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory who were the packers and
\nthe appellants\tdid  not  know\tthat  the  drugs  were\tsub-
\nstandard. The  High Court  rightly pointed out that this did
\nnot constitute\ta valid\t defence in view of section 19(1) of
\nthe Act which is as follows.\n<\/p>\n
     “19. Pleas.-(1)  Save as  hereinafter provided  in this
\n     Section, it  shall be no defence in a prosecution under
\n     this Chapter  to prove  merely  that  the\taccused\t was
\n     ignorant of  the nature,  substance or  quality of\t the
\n     drug or  cosmetic in  respect of  which the offence has
\n     been  committed   or  of\tthe  circumstances   of\t its
\n     manufacture or  import, or\t that  a  purchaser,  having
\n     bought only  for the  purpose of  test or analysis, has
\n     not been prejudiced by the sale.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
614<\/span><\/p>\n
The High  Court found  that the\t case of the accused was not
\ncovered by  sub-sections (2)  and (3)  of section  19  which
\nenumerate the  cases in\t which the general rule contained in
\nsub-section (1) would not apply. In this connection it is to
\nbe noted  that appellants  Nos. 2  and 3  are respectively a
\npartner\t and  the  manager  of\tboth  the  firms,  Rajasthan
\nPharmaceutical Laboratory, and Manoj Drug House. This appeal
\ntherefore must\tfail. It appears however that the High Court
\nhaving convicted  the appellants  as aforesaid and sentenced
\nthem under  section 27(b)  of the Act further convicted them
\n“for having  committed the  offence  punishable\t under\tsec.
\n22(1)(c)” and  sentenced “each\tone of\tthe accused to pay a
\nfine of\t Rs. 1,000\/-  (Rupees One  thousand) for the offence
\nunder Sec.  22(1) (c)”.\t Section 22(1) deals with the powers
\nof Inspectors,\tclause (c) of which states that an Inspector
\nmay within  the local  limits of  the area  for which  he is
\nappointed.\n<\/p>\n
     “enter and\t search at  all reasonable  times, with such
\n     assistants. if  any, as  he  considers  necessary,\t any
\n     place in which he has reason to believe that an offence
\n     under this\t Chapter has  been or is being committed and
\n     order in  writing the  person in possession of any drug
\n     or cosmetic in respect of which the offence has been or
\n     is being committed, not to dispose of any stock of such
\n     drug or  cosmetic for  a specified period not exceeding
\n     twenty days, or unless the alleged offence is such that
\n     the defect\t may be removed by the possessor of the drug
\n     or cosmetic seize the stock of such drug or cosmetic.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Rule 54A of the Rules framed under the Act provides:\n<\/p>\n
     “54A. Prohibition\tof sale.- No person in possession of
\n     a drug  in respect\t of which  an Inspector\t has made an
\n     order under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 22
\n     of the Act shall in contravention of that order sell or
\n     otherwise dispose of any stock of such drug.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Rule 54A prohibits contravention of a prohibitory order made
\nunder section  22(1) (c) and section 27(b) itself makes such
\ncontravention punishable  with imprisonment  or with fine or
\nwith both  Section 22(1) (c) does not provide for a separate
\npunishment. Accordingly\t we set\t aside the conviction of the
\nappellants purported to be under section 22(1)(c) of the Act
\nand the sentences passed in respect of the said ‘offence’.\n<\/p>\n
     Subject to\t the modification indicated above the appeal
\nis dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t     Appeals partly allowed.\n615<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rajasthan Pharmaceutical … vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 1981 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 809, 1981 SCR (2) 604 Author: A Gupta Bench: Gupta, A.C. PETITIONER: RAJASTHAN PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORY, BANGALORE AND TWOOTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/01\/1981 BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH CITATION: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRajasthan Pharmaceutical ... vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajasthan Pharmaceutical ... vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1981-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-03T16:23:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajasthan Pharmaceutical … vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 1981\",\"datePublished\":\"1981-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-03T16:23:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981\"},\"wordCount\":3416,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981\",\"name\":\"Rajasthan Pharmaceutical ... vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1981-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-03T16:23:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajasthan Pharmaceutical … vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 1981\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajasthan Pharmaceutical ... vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajasthan Pharmaceutical ... vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1981-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-03T16:23:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajasthan Pharmaceutical … vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 1981","datePublished":"1981-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-03T16:23:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981"},"wordCount":3416,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981","name":"Rajasthan Pharmaceutical ... vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1981-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-03T16:23:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-pharmaceutical-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-14-january-1981#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajasthan Pharmaceutical … vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 1981"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151126","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151126"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151126\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}