Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 169 (PNJ)

Prince Brain v. State of Haryana

2014-01-20

R.P.NAGRATH

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. R.P. Nagrath, J.:- This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail in FIR No. 258 dated 23.8.2013 registered under Sections 21B/22C of NDPS Act at Police Station Agroha, District Hisar. 2. Recovery made from the petitioner comprises of 864 grams of Dextropropoxyphene found on chemical analyses of Proxyvon capsules, 360 grams of codeine and 12 grams of Rexcof syrup. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that so far as codeine and Rexcof syrup are concerned, these fall in non-commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon licence (Annexure P-2) issued by the Competent Authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This licence is in the name of M/s National Agencies and petitioner Prince Brain is the proprietor of M/s National Agencies. The licence is valid for the period form 29.5.2012 to 28.5.2017. M/s National Agencies has been licenced under this document to sell stock or exhibit or offer for sale or distribute by wholesale drug specified in schedule C, C (I) and ‘X’ on the premises situated at Behind Main Market, Mandi Adampur, District Hisar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the commodity recovered from petitioner falls in Schedule H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and codeine falls at serial No. 132 and Dextroporpoxyphene falls at serial No. 140 of this Schedule. As per the contents of FIR, Spasmo Proxyvon Capsules, manufactured by WOCKHAR limited, Kunjhal Solan were recovered. 5. Learned State counsel could not controvert the validity of licence held by the petitioner. This was also the argument of petitioner argument even before the Sessions Court. 6. The other contention of the learned petitioner’s counsel was that the Drugs Control Officer, visited the premises of the petitioner and took into possession the samples of certain medicines which were found to be of standard quality. In this regard, the Government Analyst, Haryana sent a report dated 26.6.2013 (Annexure P-5) to the State Drug Controller, Haryana. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that as per contents of the FIR, the Senior Drug Control Officer was also associated in the proceedings and on the basis of instant FIR, the Drug Control Officer issued a notice dated 6.11.2013, stating that recovery was made from the premises/shop of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that as per contents of the FIR, the Senior Drug Control Officer was also associated in the proceedings and on the basis of instant FIR, the Drug Control Officer issued a notice dated 6.11.2013, stating that recovery was made from the premises/shop of the petitioner. That fact has however been ignored by learned Sessions Court being an error which could not be set up as a defence, at this stage. 7. It is further contended for the petitioner that the petitioner moved a representation dated 6.8.2013 (Annexure P-7) to the Senior Drug Control Officer, FDA, Hisar II, stating that his premises was inspected on 18.3.2013 and the same was sealed. He prayed for opening of the shop which was lying closed for about 5 months. Therefore, it was contended that there could be motive for implicating the petitioner falsely. 8. In view of the above discussion and without accepting the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner which are otherwise to be taken up as his defence, I find that the petitioner has a plausible defence to set up. He is in custody since 23.8.2013 and disposal of the trial is likely to take sometime. 9. Without commenting on the merits of case, the instant petition is allowed and petitioner be admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court.