SC: only licensed allopathic manufacturers can sell Viagra

Upholding the action of a Drugs Inspector in Andhra Pradesh, who had initiated criminal proceedings against certain drug dealers in the state...

Upholding the action of a Drugs Inspector in Andhra Pradesh, who had initiated criminal proceedings against certain drug dealers in the state who were selling Ayurvedic cures for male impotency containing Viagra, the Supreme Court has ruled that it being a patented allopathic medicine, cannot be sold by anybody unless a person holds the relevant licence for manufacture and sale of the same. 8216;Viagra8217; is actually Sildenafil Citrate, a prescription drug used to treat male sexual dysfunction.

Setting aside a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had held that the Drugs Inspector had no jurisdiction to launch prosecution under the Drugs and the Cosmetics Act, 1940, a Bench clarified that the Inspector, appointed under Chapter IV of the Act, is 8220;competent8221; to launch such prosecution against the accused dealers.

Allowing an appeal filed by the Inspector, a Bench comprising Justices A K Mathur and Altamas Kabir, said that Viagra, under no stretch of imagination, could be called an Ayurvedic medicine.

8220;It cannot be sold without displaying in the prescribed manner on the label or the container thereof or list of active ingredients contained in it together with the quantities thereof.8221;

The drug dealers in this case, as the apex court found, had no licence for the manufacture of Sildenafil Citrate.

But they were using it as one of the ingredients of the 8216;Ozomen8217; capsule manufactured by them.

Pointing out that it is a patented and a proprietory medicine, the court said that the very fact of selling this drug as one of the ingredients of 8216;Ozomen8217; capsule and not displaying the name in the prescribed manner constitute an offence under various sections of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Story continues below this ad

Only certain category of drugs and cosmetics can be manufactured and sold in public interest under relevant licence as enforced by a Government notification of 1983.

8220;We are of the opinion that the view taken by the single judge of the High Court is not correct and it should not have proceeded to quash the whole proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, when serious issues were involved in the matter,8221; it concluded.