The Madras High Court recently held that although Siddha practitioners in Tamil Nadu are not prohibited from practicing modern medicine, they cannot store allopathic medicines as it violates the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Showed.
The court, therefore, refused to quash the case registered against Dr. Siddha for storing allopathic medicines in violation of the Act.
Justice G. Jayachandran Although there were no restrictions on Siddha practitioners practicing modern medicine, the lawsuit against the doctor alleges that the doctor was storing drugs without permission, which is against the law. said.
“Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Products Act of 1940 provides that if a product is held for sale or distribution, held or displayed for sale or stock, or offered for sale or distribution, it must be issued for that purpose. It is mandatory to do so only if you have a licensed license. Section 27(b)(ii) provides penalties for contravening section 18(c). The case against the petitioner is not for the use of modern scientific systems, but for the unauthorized procurement and sale of medicines.” the court acknowledged.
The Court held that as per GO Ms. No.248 issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare on 8 September 2010, registered members of the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council are permitted to practice modern scientific medical system. He pointed out that However, the court held that pursuant to Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, any drug may be kept for distribution, sale, display, etc. only if there is a license issued for that purpose. He pointed out that it would be possible.
“GOMs.No.248, dated 09.08.2010, issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, whereby registered members of the Siddha Medical Council of Tamil Nadu practice modern scientific medical system for the purposes of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Although the scientific medical system by the petitioner is not prohibited, she was charged with keeping allopathic medicines in her clinic.” the court said.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Mr. S. Sindhu, a Bachelor of Siddha Medicine and Surgery (BSMS) and duly registered with the Siddha Medical Council of Tamil Nadu. While she was running her clinic, on February 28, 2017, officials from the Office of the Deputy Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency inspected her clinic and arrested her for violating the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940. Allopathic medicines were collected from A personal complaint was filed by the Drug Controller under Section 200 of the CrPC for an offense punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Mr. Sindhu argued that the trial court erred in its judgment before taking cognizance of the complaint. She pointed out that the court assumed her to be a quack doctor and did not take into account the government order allowing Siddha practitioners in the state to practice modern medicine.
It was further submitted that as Siddha’s doctor, she was entitled to have a small quantity of allopathic medicines in her clinic, which did not amount to selling medicines. She also submitted that there was no criminal intent in the drug possession and therefore there was no violation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act or the Drugs Regulations 1945. She also pointed out that her response to Shaw’s show cause notice was not properly considered by the government. authorities.
However, the Government Legal Representative submitted that the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice was not satisfactory. It was also submitted that the provisions of the Act regarding the manufacture, sale and distribution of medicines and cosmetics would not apply to Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani medicines, but would apply to allopathic medicines. He therefore submitted that he was issued with a show cause notice for possessing drugs without a drug licence.
The court refused to quash the proceedings, noting that the case was registered for the purpose of purchasing and selling drugs without a license. However, since the case was registered in 2018, the court directed the magistrate to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
Complainant’s attorney: Mr. A. Velmurugan
Defendant’s attorney: KMD Muhiran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
Case Title: Tmt.S. Sindhu v. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Narcotics Investigation Officer
Case number: Crl.OPNo.20143 (2024)
