Inspection Memo: Four Findings at a Retail Medical Shop
During a routine inspection of a retail medical shop in a tier-2 city, a Drugs Inspector records four findings in her memo:
(a) 14 strips of a Schedule H antibiotic were sold during the week, and the shop has no sale register for these drugs; the owner says the prescriptions were returned to the customers after dispensing. (b) 40 tablets past their expiry date by five months are on the sale shelf, with the expiry date plainly printed on each strip. (c) The registered pharmacist is absent; his friend, who holds a diploma in a non-pharmacy subject, has been attending the counter and dispensing since morning. (d) A bottle labelled "immunity booster" carries no drug licence number and is being sold as a food supplement.
The owner argues that (a) is harmless because every prescription was genuine, and that (d) falls outside the Act because the product is "only a supplement". The Inspector must decide what to book under which provision, and how far she can go on the spot.
1. For each of findings (a)–(d), identify the provision engaged and state whether the owner's defence holds.
Read the worked answer
(a) Schedule H sale without a register. Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 requires a Schedule H drug to be sold on the prescription of a registered medical practitioner and a register of such sales to be kept for two years. The owner is partly right: for a plain Schedule H drug the prescription itself need not be retained (two-year retention applies to Schedule X, and Schedule H1 requires a separate register kept three years). But the missing sale register is a breach of the Rules, bookable under the sale prohibitions in Section 18(a) of the Act. Defence fails on the register point.
(b) Expired stock on the sale shelf. Section 18(a) prohibits sale of drugs after their expiry date. Because the date is printed on the strip, no analyst report is needed to establish expiry, though seizure and sampling procedure must still be followed.
(c) Unqualified dispensing. Section 42 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 bars anyone who is not a registered pharmacist from compounding or dispensing. First conviction attracts imprisonment up to six months, or a fine up to ₹1,000, or both. This is the most serious person-level finding.
(d) "Immunity booster" without a licence number. A product carrying a therapeutic or disease-prevention claim is a "drug" under Section 3(b) of the Act regardless of how it is marketed. Sale without a drug licence contravenes Section 18(c), and a label lacking the prescribed licence particulars makes it misbranded under Section 17. Defence fails.
2. The owner offers to pay a fine at the counter and have the matter closed. Explain the correct statutory course open to the Inspector, and why the offer must be refused.
Read the worked answer
The Inspector cannot compound an offence at the counter, and accepting money would itself be misconduct.
What she may lawfully do:
- Seize the expired stock and the unlicensed product under Section 22, giving a receipt for the seized items, and record them in the seizure memo.
- Sample where analysis is needed, dividing the sample into four portions under Section 23 - one to the Government Analyst, one to the court, one to the licensee and one retained - and furnish the analyst's report in the prescribed form to the licensee, who has the right to challenge it.
- Record the Section 42 Pharmacy Act violation separately, since it is tried under a different statute and different forum from the Drugs and Cosmetics Act offences.
- Launch prosecution only through the proper channel: a complaint by an Inspector, and for the offences that require it, with the written sanction of the Controlling Authority under Section 20.
Why the offer fails: compounding of offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, where the court permits it, is done by application to the court under Section 32B, not by an Inspector accepting cash. Taking money would convert a statutory inspection into a bribe and destroy the evidentiary value of the seizure memo. The Inspector should note the offer in the memo and proceed.
3. The owner says he will return the 40 expired tablets to the wholesaler for credit. Assess this proposal.
Read the worked answer
The proposal should be refused. Crediting stock is a commercial arrangement; putting expired tablets back into the distribution chain is not.
Reasons:
- Once a drug has crossed its expiry date it cannot lawfully be sold or distributed, so a "return for credit" that re-enters the wholesaler's saleable stock simply relocates the offence.
- The correct route is quarantine and destruction: the stock is segregated from saleable stock, marked "not for sale", recorded in a destruction register, and destroyed in the manner the licensing authority directs, with a certificate of destruction retained.
- A credit note may still be raised by the wholesaler against documented destruction, but the tablets themselves must never travel back as saleable goods.
- The Inspector should also check why stock five months past expiry was still on the shelf - a failed expiry-date check suggests the shop's routine stock rotation should be written into the inspection report as a compliance condition, since repeat findings attract licence suspension rather than a warning.
In short: document, quarantine, destroy - and let the credit be settled on paper.