R.N. Dutt, J.
1. This Rule is against an order of conviction and sentence Under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner stocked huge quantities of ampules of water for injection in a godown at 357/8, Upper Chitpore Road without a licence as required Under Section 18(c) of the Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty. His defence was that he had a licence for storing and selling drugs from his shop at 43. Brojo Dulal Street under the Act, but at the relevant time the shop room was under repair and so he stored some ampules of water for injection in the godown at 357/8, Upper Chitpore Road. The learned Magistrate however convicted him and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner has thereafter obtained this Rule against this order of conviction and sentence.
3. Mr. Dutta has first contended that the ampules of water for injection which were recovered from the godown at 357/8, Upper Chitpore Road are not 'drug' within the definition of the word 'drug'. Under Section 3(b) of the Act drug includes (i) 'all medicines for internal and external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease in human beings or animals.' True, water for injection it not used as such in the human body. but water for injection is used for dis solving other medicines for injection into human body. Not any and every water can be used for such purpose and the water for injection in the instant case was such distilled water for the purposes of being used with medicine for injection into human body. Clearly therefore, this comes within the definition of drug. Mr. Dutta submits that the object of the drugs and Cosmetics Act is to prevent sub-standard in drugs. Obviously so no sub-standard water for injection can or should be used either. It is therefore but natural that such water for injection should also come under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. We hold therefore that the water for injection which were recovered from the godown at 357/8, Upper Chitpore Road do come under the definition of 'drug' contained in Section 3(b) of the Act.
4. Mr. Dutta next contends that there is no violation of the condition? of his licence. But the present prosecution is not the violation of any condition of his licence to stock medicines at 43, Brojo Dulal Street. The present prosecution is for stocking medicine at 353/8, Upper Chitpore Road without a licence which is a violation of the provisions of Section 13(c) of the Act.
5. Mr. Dutta lastly contends that the ampules in question were shifted from his shop at 43, Brojo Dulal Street because the shop was under repair. Except a statement made by the petitioner Under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no-other material on record to prove firstly that the shop at 43, Brojo Dulaii Street was actually under repair, that it was necessary to shift the ampules from the shop and that the ampules were at any time in the shop. No document has been produced to show that this stock of ampules were entered as the stock of the shop at any time. Further, it appears that no other drug excepting the ampules in question were recovered from the godown at 357/8, Upper Chitpore Road. If the shop at 43, Brojo Dulal Street was actually under repair, that it was necessary to shift the ampules from the shop and that the ampules were at any time in the shop. No document has been produced to show that this stock of ampules was entered as the stock of the shop at any time. Further, it appears that no other drug excepting the ampules in question were recovered from the godown at 357/8, Upper Chitpore Road. If the shop at 43, Brojo Dulal Street was under repair, necessitating removal of drugs from that shop it was but likely that other drugs also would have been shifted to 357/8, Upper Chitpore Road. But as we have said no other drug was found there. These circumstances make the defence version of the incident unacceptable. The learned Magistrate also has not accepted this. We do not therefore find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction.
6. Mr. Dutta then raises the question of sentence and submits that the petitioner has served out about a week of the sentence of imprisonment. We find however that the minimum sentence is imprisonment for one year, but the learned Magistrate imposed a sentence of one month only as he found the offence to be rather technical. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we do not think that we should reduce the sentence any further.
7. In the result, the Rule is discharged. The petitioner will now surrender to his bail bond to serve out the rest of the sentence.
K.K. Mitra, J.
8. I agree.