IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VP H CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 97 OF 2006 Moolchand R. Gupta ... Petitioner Vs The Commissioner of Police, ... Respondents Gr. Mumbai & Ors. Mrs. V. B. Thandhani, for the petitioner. Mrs. P. H. Kantharia, APP for the Respondents. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, AND F. M. REIS, JJ. DATED: APRIL 1, 2009. P.C.: ---- 1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. By the present petition, petitioner seeks declaration from the Court that no licence is required to sell Ayurvedic products of "Minar Vatti Manukka" and "Minar Jitaphaladi Churna" manufactured under valid licences issued by the Licensing Authorities under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act, 1955 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. We have gone through the complaint. We find prima-facie case in the complaint for violation of Section 14-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, as admittedly the product that is being sold by the petitioner contains Bhang and Bhang cannot be imported and exported into State of - 2 - Maharashtra in terms of Section 14. Whether Bhang being a constituent part of the medicine which is a licensed product, can still be not imported into the State of Maharashtra or not will depend on the out come of the trial because that needs a detailed investigation which can be done only after leading evidence before the trial Court. 2. Now, coming to the second prayer that this Court should declare that no licence was required to sell Ayurvedic Products of "Minnar Vatti Manukka" and "Minar Jitaphaladi Churna" manufactured under valid licenses issued by the Licensing Authority under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act, 1955 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. We do not find that there is any cause of action for the petitioner to seek such a declaration. The respondents have not issued any notice to the petitioner to get licence, or not to sell the products till they get licence under the Medicianal and Toilet Preparatrions Act, 1955 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Even in the counter affidavit they have maintained that the respondents have only taken samples of various products and have filed complaints under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. 3. In view of these submissions of the - 3 - respondents, we do not think that the petitioner has been forced or there is any threat to the petitioner for not running the business of manufacturing Ayurvedic products of "Minar Vatti Manukka" and "Minoar Jitaphaladi Churna" and selling these two products. 4. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed. We also make it clear that we have not gone into the question as to whether selling of these 2 products needs a licence in terms of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act, 1955 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. If the respondent feels that the petitioner cannot sell without obtaining the licence, they may take steps, required in law, before initiating any action and if steps are taken by issuance of any notice, petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to law. 5. The petitioner submits that they will sell the products mentioned in the petition only in medical stores. Sd/- Sd/- [ F. M. REIS, J.] [ BILAL NAZKI, J.]