Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Baljit Singh under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 83 dated June 19, 1997, registered under Sections 22/61/85 of the N.D.P.S. Act at P.S.C. Division, Amritsar. A copy of the aforesaid F.I.R. has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition. 2. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that on the receipt of secret information that the proprietors of M/s Jogi Medical Store were selling narcotic medicines to the general public without the doctors prescription, the police party headed by S.H.O. raided the premises of M/s Jogi Medical Store in the presence of A.S.P. Parveen Kumar on June 19, 1997 and following drugs were recovered :- "1. Proxyvon Capsule No. 97017 Total 45 capsules 2. Corbutyl tablets Batch No. 18 Total 50 tablets 3.Dexovon Capsule Batch No. C117024 Total 45 capsules 4. Diazepam Tablets Batch No. 8066 Total 120 tablets 5. Gardenal 60 mg Tablets Batch No. 544 and 487 Total 90 tablets. 6. Gercenal 30 mg Tablets Batch No. 560 Total 50 tablets 7.SPASMINDON Tablets Batch No. 4408 Total 20 tablets 8. SUZIMOL Tablets Total 16 tablets." 3. I have herd Mr. V.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Chaudhary has submitted that in fact all the drugs, which are stated to have been recovered from the petitioner are in fact the manufactured drugs and, therefore, do not fall within the ambit of the N.D.P.S. Act. Mr. Chaudhary relies upon Deep Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 417 also Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1999(2) RCR(Crl.) 245 (P&H) (Crl. Revn. No. 596 of 1997), decided on July 9, 1999. He further relies upon judgment of this Court in Leela Ram v. State of Punjab, 2002(3) RCR(Crl.) 805 (P&H) (Crl. Misc. No. 19267-M of 1996), decided on July 19, 2002. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the submissions of Mr. V.K. Chaudhary are well merited and are fully supported by the law laid down by the aforesaid judgements. In fact the entire case against the petitioner has been set up on the basis that he was in possession of the drugs as mentioned above. The said drugs are manufactured drugs and are not covered under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. V.K. Chaudhary are well merited and are fully supported by the law laid down by the aforesaid judgements. In fact the entire case against the petitioner has been set up on the basis that he was in possession of the drugs as mentioned above. The said drugs are manufactured drugs and are not covered under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. In this view of the matter, relying upon the aforesaid judgments, I hereby quash F.I.R. No. 83 dated June 19, 1997 against the petitioner. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of.Petition allowed.