DR. YASH PAL SAHI versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

DR. YASH PAL SAHI versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

The appellant sent a list of medicines to a person who was not a registered medical practitioner; compliance with marking requirements alone does not satisfy the exemption under s.14(1)(c), and the offence under s.3 read with s.7 is established.

Parties
Appellant: Dr. Yash Pal Sahi; Respondent: Delhi Administration
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 November 1963
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order of High Court (circuit Bench) at Delhi in Criminal Revision Application No. 281 D of 1961
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Objectionable Advertisements, Medical Practitioner Exemption, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Drugs and Cosmetics Law Objectionable Advertisements Medical Practitioner Exemption Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Yash Pal Sahi

Appellant

Delhi Administration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order of High Court (circuit Bench) at Delhi in Criminal Revision Application No. 281 D of 1961

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sending a list of medicines to a non-registered medical practitioner constitutes publication of an objectionable advertisement under s.3 read with s.7 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to exemption under s.14(1)(c) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant sent a list of medicines to a person who was not a registered medical practitioner; compliance with marking requirements alone does not satisfy the exemption under s.14(1)(c), and the offence under s.3 read with s.7 is established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction under s.3 read with s.7 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, affirmed
  • Fine of Rs. 500 upheld