minal Appeal No 107 of 1961
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 16 1961 of the Bombay High Court in Cr A No 21 of 1961
345 Rajni Patel J B Dadachanji O C Mathur and Ravinder Narain for the appellant
HR Khanna R H Dhebar and R N Sachthey for the respondents
September 26
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J
This appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Bombay raises the question of construction of s3b of the Drugs Act 1940 as amended by the Drugs Amendment Act 1955 hereinafter called the Act
This appeal has been argued on the basis of facts found by the High Court
The appellant was carrying on business in the name of Deepak Trading Corporation at Bulakhidas Building Vithaldas Road Bombay
On December 27 1958 the Sub Inspector of Police accompanied by the Drug Inspector raided the said building and found large quantities of absorbent cotton wool roller bandages gauze and other things
It was found that the appellant was not only storing these goods in large quantities but was actually manufacturing them in Bombay and passing them off as though they were manufactured by a firm of repute in Secunderabad
The samples of the aforesaid articles and lint were sent to the Government Analyst who reported that out of the samples sent to him only the lint was of standard quality and the other articles were not of standard quality
The appellant was  prosecuted before the Presidency Magistrate 16th Court Bombay for an offence under section 18 of the Act inter alia for manufacturing drugs which were not of standard quality
The learned Presidency
Magistrate acquitted the appellant on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that the articles were in the possession of the appellant
The High Court on a resurvey of the evidence came to a different conclusion and found that the said articles 346 were not only found in the possession of the appellant but also were manufactured by him and that they were below the standard prescribed
On the finding  it convicted the
appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs 500 under each count
Hence the appeal
Though an attempt was made to argue that the said articles had not been proved to be below the prescribed standard it was subsequently given up  The only question that was argued is whether the said articles are drugs within the meaning of section 3b of the Act
The said section reads drug includes iall medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the treatment mitigation or prevention of disease in human beings or animals other than medicines and substances exclusively used or prepared for use in accordance with the Ayur vedic or Unani systems of medicine and iisuch substances other than food intended to affect the structure or any function of the human body or intended to be used for the destruction of vermin or insects which cause disease in human beings or animals as may be specified from time to time by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette
The said definition of drug is comprehensive enough to take in not only medicines but also substances intended to be used for or in the treatment of diseases of human beings or animals
This artificial definition 347 introduces a distinction between medicines and substances which are not medicines strictly so called
The expression substances therefore must be something other than medicines but which are used for treatment
The part of the definition which is material for the present case is  substances invented to be used for or in the treatment
The appropriate meaning of the expression substances in the section is things
It cannot be disputed and indeed it is not disputed that absorbent cotton wool roller bandages and gauze are substances within the meaning of the said expression
If so the next question is whether they are used for or in treatment
The said articles are sterilized or otherwise treated to make them disinfectant and then used for surgical dressing they are essential materials for treatment in surgical cases
Besides being aseptic these articles have to possess those qualities which are utilized in the treatment of diseases
Thus for instance in the case of gauze one of the articles concerned in this appeal it has to conform to a standard of absorbency in order that it might serve its purpose otherwise the fluid which oozes is left to accumulate at the site of the wound or sore
The Legislature designedly extended the definition of  drug so as to take in substances which are necessary aids for treating surgical or other cases
The main object of the Act is to prevent substandard in drugs presumably for maintaining high standards of medical treatment
That would certainly be defeated if the necessary concomitants of medical or surgical treatment were allowed to be diluted the very same evil which the Act intends to eradicate would continue to subsist
Learned counsel submitted that surgical instruments would not fall within the definition and that gauze and lint would fall within the same class
It is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to definite exhaustively the substances falling within the definition of  drugs and we consider that whether or not surgical instruments are drugs the articles concerned in this case are
348 Learned counsel for the appellant sought to rely upon a report of a high powered committee consisting of expert doctors who expressed the opinion in the report that as the surgical dressings did not come under the purview of the Drugs Act no control on their quality was being exercised
Obviously the opinion of the medical experts would not help us in construing a statutory provision
We therefore hold agreeing with the High
Court that the said articles are substances used for or in the treatment within the meaning of section 3b of the Act
An impassioned appeal was made for reducing the sentences imposed upon the appellant
When a similar argument was advanced in the High Court it pointed out that this was a gross case where large quantities of spurious drugs had been manufactured by the appellant and passed off as goods manufactured by a firm of repute
The appellant was guilty of an anti social act of a very serious nature
In our view the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for three months was more lenient than severe
There is no case for interference with the sentences
The appeal fails and is dismissed
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was found in possession of large quantities of absorbent cotton wool roller bandages and gauze which he had manufactured
On analysis these were found to be sub standard and the appellant was prosecuted under section 18 of the Drugs Act 1940 for manufacturing sub standard drugs
He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs 500
The appellant contended that these articles were not drugs as defined in section 3b of the Act and that the sentence imposed was too severe
Held that absorbent cotton wool roller bandages and gauze were drugs within the meaning of section 3b and the appellant was rightly convicted
In the definition drugs included substances intended to be used for or in treatment of diseases
Substances was something other than medicines and meant things
The said articles were sterilized or otherwise treated to make them disinfectant they were used for surgical dressings and were essential materials for treatment in surgical cases
The object of the Act of maintaining high standards of medical treatment would be defeated if the necessary concomitants of medical or surgical treatment were allowed to be diluted
Held furtherthat the sentence erred on the side of leniency rather than severity and could not be reduced
It was a case where large quantities of spurious and sub standard drugs had been manufactured by the appellant
He was guilty of an antisocial act of a very serious nature