Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1370 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh Arora v. State of Punjab

2010-04-05

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2010
JUDGMENT Nirmaljit Kaur, J.:- This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No. 68 dated 15.04.2008 under Sections 22/61/85 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Ghal Khurd, District Ferozepur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-Ranjit Singh Arora is a licence chemist and running a shop under the name and style of M/s Sonu Medical Store. The petitioner is the Proprietor of the aforesaid firm. Copy of the licence issued to the aforesaid Medical Store has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was apprehended while coming from the Railway Station Ferozashah along with the plastic bag, in which, there were 12 packets of macrolit tablets and each packet contains 100 tablets, 48 packets of macrolit and each packet contains 100 tablets and one more packet of momolit contain 160 tablets. 3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the petitioner was running a chemist shop under the name and style of M/s Sonu Medical Store. However, the police did not pay any heed and took the petitioner in possession along with the medicines. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that the recovered medicines are scheduled medicines which can be sold by the Chemist on the prescription of doctor. The firm is selling the medicines on the prescription of the doctor. It is further submitted that the alleged recovered medicines are duly purchased by the firm from the duly authorised dealers. It is also alleged that the recovered medicines are life saving drugs and are being prescribed by the doctors during treatment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court the order dated 22.03.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2003, whereby, on directions of this Court, the State Government had constituted a Committee to go into all such matters and see in case any offence under the NDPS Act is made out in those cases where the recovery of drugs is involved and specially when these persons are having license to run Chemist Shop. 5. Accordingly, the meeting regarding review of the said case was held and the SIT has submitted its report vide forwarding letter dated 24.02.2010 of the Additional Director General of Police, Crime, Punjab Chandigarh. 5. Accordingly, the meeting regarding review of the said case was held and the SIT has submitted its report vide forwarding letter dated 24.02.2010 of the Additional Director General of Police, Crime, Punjab Chandigarh. The said report was handed over by the learned counsel for the State and the same is taken on record. As per the same, the Chemical Analysis Report revealed as under :- “ Chemical Analysis report reveals that the recovered drugs contain the salt of Diphenoxylate HCL, Atropine sulphate.” 6. As per the said report, the Technical opinion of Drugs Inspector is as under :- “The drugs recovered vide recovery memo contain Diphenoxylate and Atropine is covered at serial No. 58 of the notification No. 826 E dated 14.11.1985, hence not covered under the NDPS Act, 1985” Thereafter, the Committee recommended as under :- “ As per Technical opinion report of drug inspector Ferozepur, the recovered drug contain salt Diphenoxylate and Atropine covered at serial No. 58 of the notification No. SO 826/E dated 14.11.1985 accused Ranjit Singh was holding valid drug sale license hence the provision of NDPS Act, 1985 was not attracted. However, the drug was recovered in quantity and no bill or any valid drug sale license was showing by the accused at the time of recovery, so it should be prosecuted under Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1940.” 7. Thus, as per the above report, no offence under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is made out. However, the provisions of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 have been violated. 8. This Court, in the case of Johnson and another vs. State of Punjab in Crl. Misc. No.25319-M of 2004 vide Order dated 11.10.2006, in similar circumstances, held as under – “After reviewing the present case, the aforementioned committee concluded that no offence under NDPS Act was made out and the allegations disclosed commission of offence under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act only. The conclusion of the Committee in respect of the present case is reproduced here-inbelow : “Do not attract the provision of NDPS Act 1985 because psychotropic substance salts are not found in recovered medicines. Accused deserved to be charge under Drug & Cosmetic Act, 1940. Recommended for cancellation.” As a result of above, I hold that no offence under the provisions of NDPS Act is made out against the petitioners. Accused deserved to be charge under Drug & Cosmetic Act, 1940. Recommended for cancellation.” As a result of above, I hold that no offence under the provisions of NDPS Act is made out against the petitioners. The prosecution allegation disclose commission of an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act. However, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act on the basis of FIR as only a complaint by the Drugs Inspector was competent for initiating action against the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of that Act.” 9. In another case of Pawan Kumar and another vs. State of Punjab (CRR No.165 of 2009, decided on 28.01.2010), this Court allowed the revision petition by holding as under :- “In view of the recommendations of the Committee and above discussion, the petitioner can be prosecuted only under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Special Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali whereby the petitioners have been charged for offences under Sections 22/61/85 of NDPS Act in consequence of FIR No.243 dated 12.08.2008 registered at Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar, is quashed. However, the State is at liberty to proceed against the petitioners under the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act.” 10. Thus, in view of the recommendations of the Committee and above discussion, no offence under the provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is made out against the petitioner. The prosecution allegation disclose commission of an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is accepted and the proceedings launched against the petitioner under the provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by way of registration of FIR are quashed. However, the concerned Drug Inspector is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act by filing a criminal complaint, if so advised. —————