C No 677 of 1988
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
PN Duda N Safaya PK Choudhary and Ms Rekha Pandey for the Petitioners
Kapil Sibal Additional Solicitor General Ms A Subha shini and K Swamy for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V RAMASWAMI J
In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioners have questioned the con stitutional validity of Section 5 of the 12 of 1919 hereinafter called the Act 
The grounds on which the vires of the provisions is attacked are that the section gives an unguided unchanelised and arbitrary power to the State Government to include any substance as poison for the purpose of restriction to be imposed on the posses sion for sale and sale of the same
It was further contended that the restriction imposed on possession for sale and sale were not reasonable restrictions
The petitioner s have also taken the plea that though the Act is a Central enactment it is possible of unjust and unjustified discriminatory appli cation as it is left to each State Government to determine what substance they would include as poison and regulated and the decision in one State to include the substance as poison is not automatically made applicable to the other States
The object of the enactment is to regulate the posses sion for sale and the sale whether wholesale or retail of poisons and the importation of the same
In other words it is intended to control over the traffic in poisons
Though the original enactment the Poisons Act 1904 was restrict ed it was applicable to white arsenic the expanded its provisions and enabled State Government to declare any substance as poison for the purposes of the Act by a notification under the Act or the rules made under the Act
In exercise of this power by the Notification No F 104472 fin
G dated 781973 the Lt Governor of Delhi amended the Delhi Poisons Rules 1926 hereinafter called the Rules by including to the list of substances included in the Rules as Poisons the substance commonly known 222 as thinner  containing spirit and other soluble material such as shellac in which the percentage of such soluble material does not exceed 30 as poison and consequential amendment of rules 12 and 13 of the Rules
It was the con tention of the petitioners before the authorities that their unit is manufacturing only those thinners which contain only liquid substance like as ecotone ethyl acetate SDS etc
and not all solubles
 According to them therefore the substance manufactured by them would not come within the amended Rules
Though in the beginning the petitioners were contending that in substance manufactured by them did not come within Rule 2x2 and there were some correspondence in this regard when the competent authority held that the substance manufactured by the petitioners would come within the definition of thinner  as contained in Rule 2x2 of the Rules the petitioners did not question the finding on any material
Before us also they had not placed any materi al to show that the finding was wrong or that the substance would not come within Rule 2x2
In fact the learned counsel argued the petition on the basis that the petition ers are a manufacturer of thinner  within Rule 2x2 which has been declared as poison for purposes of the Act
Originally the Act contained a schedule in which the list of substances declared as poisons were listed
Later when Delhi Poisons Rules 1926 were made in exercise of the powers under the Act those list of substances were included in the list enumerated in Rule 2 thereof
Rule 2 was amended as already stated including thinner  of the description mentioned therein as poison
Section 5 of the Act the con stitutional validity of which is questioned reads as fol lows 5
Presumption as to specified poisons Any substance specified as a poison in a rule made or notification issued under this Act shall be deemed to be a poison for the purpose of this Act
 It was a law in force in the territory of India before the commencement of the Constitution and as such continued in force
The Act is intended to regulate the importation possession and sale of poisons
Some substances were includ ed in the Rules made in 1926 as poisons and that is not in dispute
Section 5 of the Act deals with presumption and states that any substance specified as a poison in a Rule or noti fication issued under the Act shall be deemed to be a po ison  for purposes of the Act
Rules of 1926 were made in exercise of the rule making power under Section 3 of the Act
223 That Section enables the State Government to make Rules generally to carry out the purposes and objects of the Act
Rules were amended in 1973 and duly notified as required by the Act
Section 23 of the  11904 defined poison as Any substance which were applied to the body internally or externally or in any way intro duced into the system is capable without acting mechanically but by its own inherent qualities
or destroying life When this Act 11904 was repealed and re enacted as Poison Act 12 of 1919 the definition was omitted and speci fied substances were included in the schedule with a power vested in the State Government to amend the same by Rules including other substances to the list of poisons
It is not all poisonous substances that are brought within the regula tion under the Act
It is those substances which the Govern ment consider its possession for sale or sale to be regulat ed in the interest of health and safety of the society
This limitation is inherent in the scheme of the Act itself
Of course no comprehensive definition can be given to the word poison
Under this term would fall anything calcu lated to destroy life
Substances harmless in themselves might become poison by the time or manner of their adminis tration
Nothing is a poison unless regard be had to its administration
A substance may be a deadly poison or a valuable medicine according to how and how much is taken
If the resultant effect of administering into the system pro duces a violent morbid or fatal changes or which destroys living tissues the substance can be safely called poison
Section 4 of the Act impliedly sets out certain guidelines when the State can notify a substance as poison
It states that the State Government may by rule regulate the posses sion of any specified poison in any local area in which the use of such poison for the purpose of committing murder or mischief by poisoning cattle appears to it to be of such frequent occurrence as to render restriction on the posses sion thereof desirable
Any substance which is used for purposes mentioned therein can definitely be declared as poison
That is what the Government have done in this case
It has become a notorious fact which we can even take judicial notice of that the substance known as thinner  as it is or mixing with some other substances are taken as intoxicating spirits endangering the life
In many cases deaths have also occurred due to drinking such substance
If the Government thought in the circumstances that the posses sion or sale of the same is to be regulated it could not be said that they have no power to regulate
Section 2 224 also enables the Government by Rule to regulate the posses sion for sale and the sale of the specified poison
It is in exercise of this power Rule 13 was amended by substituting the old Rule by the following Rule 13 1 All poisons kept for sale by any licence holder under these rules except those kept by a chemist druggist or compounder for the purchase of dispensing or compounding in compliance with the prescription of medical or veterinary practitioner shall be kept in a box almirah room or building according to the quantity maintained which shall be secured by lock and key and in which no sub stance shall be placed other than poisons possessed in accordance with a licence granted under the Act and each poison shall be kept within such box almirah room or building in a separate closed receptacle of glass metal or earthenware
Every such box almirah room or building and every receptacle shall be marked with the word poison  in red charac ters both English and vernacular and in the case of receptacles containing separate poison  with the name of such poison 
Provided that above rule shall not apply to poison  mentioned in Clause x of Rule 2
ii All poisons  mentioned in clause x of rule 2 shall be kept in a room or building according to quantity maintained which shall be secured by lock and key in a separate receptacle of glass metal and earthenware etc
Every such room building and every such receptacle shall be marked with the word poison  in red character both English and vernacular with the name of the poison 
 We are not impressed with the argument that any require ment in this Rule is unreasonable or offends the petition ers  right to carry on any trade or business
The nature of trade in poison is such that nobody can be considered to have an absolute right to carry on the same
It is a busi ness which can be termed even as inherently dangerous to health and safety of society in view of the rampant misuse and sale to the poor weak and helpless as an intoxicant
A law in such circumstance can regulate the trade
This posi tion is well settled and it would be pedantic to cite all the authorities of this Court on this point
It is also not necessary that the same substance should be declared as poison for the entire country
The notification and its application to any area would depend on the necessity 225 to declare the substance as poison on the particular facts and situation prevailing in that area and the need to regu late the possession and sale in that area
No question of discrimination can arise in such circumstances
We are of opinion that the provisions of neither Section 2 nor 5 nor the impugned notification are hit by any consti tutional limitation
The writ petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed
Rule nisi is discharged
No order as to costs


Summary:
The Lt Governor of Delhi amended the Delhi Poisons Rules 1926 by the Notification No F104472 fin
G dated 781973 by including to the list of substances in cluded in the Rules as Poisons the substance commonly known as thinner containing spirit and other soluble material
The petitioners in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution questioned the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the on the grounds that the section gives an arbitrary power to the State Government to include any substance as poison for the purpose of restric tion to be imposed on the possession for sale and sale of the same that the restriction imposed on possession for sale and sale were not reasonable restrictions that though the Act was a Central enactment it was possible of unjust and unjustified discriminatory application as it was left to each State Government to determine what substance they would include as poison and that the substance thinner  manu factured by the petitioners would not come within the amend ed Rules
Dismissing the petition this Court HELD 1
The object of the enactment is to regulate the possession for sale and the sale whether wholesale or retail of poisons and the importation of the same
In other words it is intended to control over the traffic in poi sons
The enabled State Government to declare any substance as poison for the purposes of the Act by a notification under the Act or the rules made under the Act
221 G 3
It is not all poisonous substances that are brought within the regulation under the Act
It is those substances which the Government consider its possession for sale or sale to be regulated in the interest of health and safety of the society
This limitation is inherent in the scheme of the Act itself
223 C D 4
No comprehensive definition can be given to the word poison
Under this term would fall anything calculated to destroy life
Substances harmless in themselves might become poison by the time or manner of their administration
Noth ing is a poison unless regard be had to its administration
A substance may be a deadly poison or a valuable medicine according to how and how much is taken
If the resultant effect of administering into the system produces a violent morbid or fatal changes or which destroys living tissues the substance can be safely called poison
Any substance which is used for purposes mentioned therein section 4 can definitely be declared as poison
223 D F 5
It has become a notorious fact that the substance known as thinner  as it is or mixing with some other sub stances are taken as intoxicating spirits endangering the life
In many cases deaths have also occurred due to drink ing such substance
If the Government thought in the circum stances that the possession or sale of the same is to be regulated it could not be said that they have no power to regulate
Section 2 also enables the Government to regulate the possession for sale and the sale of the specified poi son
223 G H 224 A 6
The nature of trade in poison is such that nobody can be considered to have an absolute right to carry on the same
It is a business which can be termed even as inherent ly dangerous to health and safety of society in view of the rampant misuse and sale to the poor weak and helpless as an intoxicant
A law in such circumstance can regulate the trade
It is also not necessary that the same substance should be declared as poison for the entire country
The notification and its application to any area would depend on the necessity to declare the substance as poison on the particular facts and situation prevailing in that area and the need to 221 regulate the possession and sale in that area
No question of discrimination can arise in such circumstances
224 G H 225 A