Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner Leela Ram has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 211 dated July 6, 1996 lodged in P.S. Kotwali, Barnala under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Proprietor of M/s Punjab Medical Hall, New Bus Stand Road, Barnala, carrying on the business of retail chemists and was having a valid drug licence at the relevant time. It is stated that the proprietor of M/s Punjab Medical Hall is an authorised stockist dealing in retail to be sold to consumers on prescription or otherwise having a valid bill. On November 27, 1995, while the petitioner was coming out, he was found in possession of one injection of Norphine and further in his left hand in a glazed paper he was holding 7 packets containing 10 injections each of Norphine. Upon the recovery of the aforesaid injections, the police registered a case under the N.D.P.S. Act. In the seizure memo, a recovery of 79 injections was shown. 3. The main contention of Sh. Rameshwar Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in fact Norphine is a manufactured drug and does not come within the purview of provisions of N.D.P.S. Act and is covered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for which the petitioner possessed a valid drug licence. In this view of the matter, he has stated that in fact the registration of the FIR against the petitioner was wholly without any basis and no offence whatsoever was shown to have been committed by the petitioner merely on the basis of possessing of the aforesaid Norphine injections. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 417 (Deep Kumar v. State of Punjab) and also a judgment of this Court in Criminal revision No. 596 of 1997 (Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab) decided on July 9, 1999. 5. I have gone through the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel and find that the aforesaid judgments fully cover the submissions of the petitioner. In fact the entire case against the petitioner is that he was in possession of Norphine injection. In fact the said seized substance was a manufactured drug and was not covered under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. In fact the entire case against the petitioner is that he was in possession of Norphine injection. In fact the said seized substance was a manufactured drug and was not covered under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. In this view of the matter, relying upon the law laid down on the aforesaid authorities, I hereby quash the F.I.R. No. 211 dated July 6, 1996 and consequential proceedings against the petitioner.