Chennai: The Madras High Court bench of Justice G Jayachandran recently dismissed a criminal petition challenging the legality of prosecuting a qualified Siddha medical practitioner for allegedly storing and distributing allopathic medicines without proper authorization. The bench held that while Siddha practitioners are permitted to practice modern scientific systems of medicine under Tamil Nadu Government Order G.O.Ms.No.248, the possession of allopathic medicines without a license violates the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The petitioner namely Tmt. S. Sindhu, a registered Bachelor of Siddha Medicine and Surgery (BSMS) practitioner, runs the People Care Clinic in Chennai. During an inspection on February 28, 2017, a Drugs Control officer found allopathic medicines in her clinic, leading to the filing of a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), citing contraventions of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the same Act. Sindhu’s counsel argued that as a registered Siddha practitioner, she is entitled to practice modern scientific medicine, as outlined in the Tamil Nadu Government’s 2010 order. The counsel further emphasized that the mere possession of a small quantity of allopathic medicines does not constitute selling, particularly when no criminal intent to distribute these medicines was evident. He referred to a 2023 Supreme Court judgment in S. Athilakshmi v. The State, where it was held that storing small quantities of allopathic medicine in a clinic does not amount to an offense under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act if there is no intent to sell.
The Drug Controller however, maintained that during the inspection, a significant quantity of allopathic drugs, including physician samples, medicines marked with Maximum Retail Prices (MRP), and some used medicines, were found in the clinic. The authorities argued that these findings indicated that the petitioner was stocking and possibly distributing the drugs without the required license, which is a violation of Section 18(c) of the Act. The government counsel pointed out that while Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act exempts Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani medicines from certain provisions, it does not provide exemptions for allopathic drugs.
The single judge bench agreed with the prosecution’s stance, clarifying that the issue was not about Sindhu’s right to practice modern medicine but rather her failure to obtain a license to store and distribute allopathic medicines. Court concluded that the petitioner’s arguments, including the reliance on the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment, were irrelevant, as the case concerned unlicensed possession of allopathic drugs, not merely their use. Consequently, dismissing the petition, court directed the court below to expedite the trial, which dates back to 2018, emphasizing the importance of timely judicial proceedings.
