37. Further, the submission of the learned senior counsel that insofar as retail sales is concerned, which is made to an individual consumer, it is only the strips, which is bought and not the entire carton as there is no further sale envisaged under the retail sales, however, the said contention also cannot have the required force to convince this Court as the definition of retail sale, as found in 2 (f) of the Rules, define “retail sale” to mean a sale whether to a hospital, or a dispensary or a medical, educational or research institute or to any other person other than a sale by way of whole sale dealing. However, the definition in 2 (g) pertaining to “sale by way of wholesale dealing” also takes within its fold a sale made to a hospital, dispensary, meaning thereby that a hospital and dispensary would stand covered under both wholesale and retail sale and the supplier would not be aware of the manner in which the sale is made by a hospital or dispensary, and in such a scenario, the non-labeling of the requisite details on the carton would have wider ramifications to the user of the drug, who would not be aware of the particulars as prescribed u/s 96 (1), which are important knowledge to the consumer with regard to purchase and consumption of the drug. 38. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no violation of the Rules, as the mandate of Rule 96 (1) has been complied with under Rule 96 (3) (i) is nothing but stretching the limit too far, which is not envisaged under the aforesaid provision and giving any
