Page 52 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

10 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
something in the context, or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary.
Where a word has a secondary meaning, the assessment is whether the natural,
ordinary or popular meaning flows from the context in which the word has been
employed. In such cases, the distinction disappears and Courts must adopt the
meaning which flows as a matter of plain interpretation and the context in which
the word appears.
17. In State of HP v. Pawan Kumar [(2005) 4 SCC 550], it was contended
that the safeguards provided in Section 50 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psycho-
tropic Substances Act, 1985 regarding search of any person would also apply to
any bag, briefcase or any such article or container, which is being carried by the
person. The word ‘person’ was not defined in the Act. A three judge Bench of
this Court, having regard to the scheme of the Act and the context in which the
word - ‘person’ has been used, rejected the contention and held thus :
“8. One of the basic principles of interpretation of statutes is to construe
them according to plain, literal and grammatical meaning of the words. If
that is contrary to, or inconsistent with, any express intention or declared
purpose of the statute, or if it would involve any absurdity, repugnancy or
inconsistency, the grammatical sense must then be modified, extended or
abridged, so far as to avoid such an inconvenience, but no further. The onus
of showing that the words do not mean what they say lies heavily on the
party who alleges it. He must advance something which clearly shows that
the grammatical construction would be repugnant to the intention of the
Act or lead to some manifest absurdity.”
The above canon of statutory interpretation has been consistently followed by
this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar [2005 Cr.L.J. (SC) 2008],
State of Haryana v. Suresh [(2007) 15 SCC 186], State of Rajasthan v. Babu Ram
[(2007) 6 SCC 55] and Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar
and Company [(2018) 9 SCC 1 = 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.)].
18. The word ‘medicine’ is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary thus :
“Medicine - the science and art dealing with the prevention, cure and alle-
viation of diseases; in a narrower sense that part of science and art of restor-
ing and preserving health which is the province of the physician as distin-
guished from the surgeon and obstetrician.”
Collins Dictionary for Advanced Learners defines ‘medicine’ thus :
“Medicine is the treatment of illness and injuries by doctors and nurses; is a
substance that you drink or swallow to cure an illness”
Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘medicine’ as :
“A drug that is used to treat illness or injury; the science dealing with the
preserving of health and with preventing and treating disease or injury.”
The ordinary or popular understanding of the term medicine is characterized by
its curative properties in general and specifically, its use for or in diagnosis,
treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease or disorder.
19. In State of Goa v. Leukoplast (India) Ltd. [(1997) 4 SCC 82 = 1997 (92)
E.L.T. 19 (S.C.)], the question before this Court concerned whether Zinc Oxide
Adhesive Plaster BPC (Leukoplast), Surgical Wound Dressing (Handyplast), Bel-
ladona Plaster BPC, Capsicum Plaster BPC and Cotton Crape Bandages BPC
(Leukocrapes) are ‘drugs’ or ‘medicine’ under the 1940 Act. A two judge Bench
of this Court laid down the test to determine whether a product is a medicine in
the following terms :

GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  52