 Lee admitted both charges.The charge under Section 85 (5) (supplying a label which falsely describes the product or which would likely mislead as to the product's uses or effects) and charge under 64(1) (selling of any medicinal product not of the nature or quality specified in the prescription) of the Act.The defence argued that section 85 (5) could only be breached by a person carrying on a business – i.e.