|
19. Pleas. �
(1) Save as hereinafter provided in this section,
it shall be no defence in a prosecution under this Chapter to prove merely that
the accused was ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the drug [(Note:
Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.15 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or cosmetic] in respect of
which the offence has been committed or of the circumstances of its manufacture
or import, or that a purchaser, having bought only for the purpose of test or
analysis, has not been prejudiced by the sale.
(2) For the purposes of
section 18 a drug shall not be deemed to be misbranded or [(Note: Subs. by Act
68 of 1982, sec.16, for "adulterated" (w.e.f. 1-2-1983) adulterated or
spurious] or to be below standard quality nor shall a cosmetic be deemed to be
misbranded or to be below standard quality] only by reason of the fact that �
(a) Tere has been added
thereto some innocuous substance or ingredient because the same is required for
the manufacture or preparation of the drug [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962,
sec.15 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or cosmetic] as an article of commerce in a state fit
for carriage or consumption, and not to increase the bulk, weight or measure of
the drug [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.15 (w.e.f. 27-7-1964)) or cosmetic]
or to conceal its inferior quality or other defects ; or
(aa) (Clauses (aa) inserted
by Act 11 of 1955, sec.10, omitted by Act 13 of 1964, sec. 15 (w.e.f.
15-9-1964))
(b) In the process of
manufacture, preparation or conveyance some extraneous substance has unavoidably
become intermixed with it; provided that this clause shall not apply in relation
to any sale or distribution of the drug [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.15 (w.e.f.
27-7-1964)) or cosmetic] occurring after the vendor or distributor became aware
of such intermixture.
[(3) (Note: Subs. by Act 13 of
1964, sec.15, for sub-section (3) (w.e.f. 15-9-1964)) A person, not being the
manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof,
shall not be liable for a contravention of section 18 if he proves �
(a) That he acquired the drug
or cosmetic from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof ;
(b) That he did not know and
could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the drug or cosmetic
in any way contravened and remained in the same state as when he acquired it.]
COMMENTS
All that the prosecution is
required to prove in order to establish the contravention of section 18 is the
fact that the accused had sold or exhibited for sale the drug which was not of
standard quality or which was a misbranded drug. If the accused want to get rid
of the effect of the effect of the prosecution evidence then it is for them to
establish the defences which are available to them under sub-section (3) of
section 19 of the Act; Public Prosecutor v. Hatambhai, AIR 1969 AP 99.
|
