ORDER : P.N. Prakash, J. 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.300 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Court, Special Court for E.C. and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and to quash the same. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.03.2005, around 16.30 hours, the Inspector of Police, Thuckalay and his team, on prior intelligence, visited Devi Medicals, Thuckalay, a pharmacy which was manned at that time by one Manoharan [A4]. When the police team made enquiries, it is said that Manoharan [A4] voluntarily came forward and handed over 46 ampoules of intoxicating injection without any label. The police seized the drug and arrested Manoharan and based on the information provided by him, they intercepted accused 2, 3 and 5 at Thottiyodu and recovered from each of them, large number of vials containing the same substance. To be precise, from A2 - 74 ampoules; A3 - 75 ampoules; and A5 - 30 ampoules. On further information provided by the accused, the police searched the house of A1 and recovered 850 ampoules of similar unlabelled intoxicating injection. The accused were arrested and the samples that were drawn from the contraband was sent to the Chemical Examiner for report and the report disclosed that the drug contained Buprenophine, a psychotropic substance, falling within SI. No.92 of the Schedule to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act"]. The police had totally seized 1076 ampoules of the drug, each containing 2 ml. After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.300 of 2009, which is now pending on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, against the five accused for offences under Sections 22 read with 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, challenging which, A2 and A3 are before this Court, for quashing the prosecution. 3. Heard Mr. R. Anand, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. K. Anbarasan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the State. 4. At the outset, Mr. Anand submitted that from A2 and A3, only 75 and 74 ampoules, respectively, were seized and that even according to the prosecution, each vial contained only 2 ml. 3. Heard Mr. R. Anand, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. K. Anbarasan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the State. 4. At the outset, Mr. Anand submitted that from A2 and A3, only 75 and 74 ampoules, respectively, were seized and that even according to the prosecution, each vial contained only 2 ml. of the drug and if that is multiplied with the number of vials seized, the accused can be prosecuted only for possessing small quantity and not commercial quantity. In support of this method of calculation, learned counsel placed reliance on a recent judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Mohamad Ali Jinna v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543 = [CrI.R.C.No.1421 of 2016 dated 14.03.2017]. 5. Per contra, the State has filed a counter, wherein, it is stated as follows in paragraph 7(b): "b. I respectfully submit with respect to ground No: (b) that the charge sheet is filed under Section 22 r/w Section 8C of the Act. The contrabands recovered and seized from the accused persons is totally amounting to 1076 ampoules, each containing 2ml, i.e., 2152 ml as a whole, which is more than two litres." 6. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 7. This Court carefully studied the order in Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2016 relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused and is unable to persuade itself to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge for the reasons which will be set down herein below. 8. For the sake of convenience, Mohamad Ali Jinna v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, will be referred to as M.A.Jinna's case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543. 9. It may be relevant to briefly state the facts obtaining in M.A. Jinna's case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543. In M.A. Jinna's case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized 28,358 tablets weighing 6.52 kg of Zolfresh in strips of ten tablets each, bearing the brand name Zolfresh manufactured by Abott Group of Companies, from the possession of the accused. For the discussion at hand, it may not be necessary to indicate the details of the quantity of possession from each of the accused, as that may not be germane for the present discussion. For the discussion at hand, it may not be necessary to indicate the details of the quantity of possession from each of the accused, as that may not be germane for the present discussion. The sample drawn from the seized tablets was sent to the Custom House Laboratory' and the report disclosed that the tested sample contained Zolpidem, a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act. After completing the investigation, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence initiated prosecution against the accused in C.C.No.4 of 2016 before the Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Chennai for offences under Sections 9A r/w 29, 9A T/w 25A, 8(c) r/w 29,8(c) r/w 22(c) and 8(c) r/w 28 of the NDPS Act. It was contended by the accused that they were possessing only small quantities of the drug and therefore, they cannot be charged for the offence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act for alleged contravention involving commercial quantity and that they can be prosecuted only for the offence under Section 22(b) for allegedly possessing intermediate quantity. This argument found favour with the learned Judge who directed that the charge that should be framed against the accused should be one under Section 22(b) for alleged possession of in-between quantity and not under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. 10. The undisputed facts in that case are: (a) Zolpidem is listed as SI. No.109 in the list of psychotropic substance in the Schedule to the NDPS Act; (b) In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses vii (a) and xxiii (a) of Section 2 of the NDPS Act, the Central Government has listed Zolpidem as item no.238 in the notification in S.O. 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001. 11. For better appreciation, it may be necessary to extract verbatim not only the entry in SI. No.238 of the Notification dated 19.10.2001 but also the residuary entry in SI. No.239. Sl. No. Name of Narcotic Drug and Other non-Psychotropic Substance (In-propriety ternational non-proprietory name name (INN) Chemical Name Small Quantity (in gm.) Commercial Quantity (in gm./kg) 238 ZOLPIDE N, N, 6-trimethy 1-2-p tolylimidazo [1, 2-apha] pyridine-3-acetamide 10 250gm 239 Any mixture or preparation that of with or without a neutral material, of any of the above drugs * ** * Lesser of the Small quantity between the quantities given against the respective narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances mentioned above forming part of the mixture. ** Lesser of the Commercial quantity between the quantities given against the respective narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances mentioned above forming part of the mixture. Note: (1) The small quantity and the commercial quantity given against the respective drugs listed above apply to isomers, within specific chemical designation, the esters, ethers and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers; whenever existence of such substance is possible. (2) The quantities shown against the respective drugs listed above also apply to the preparations of the drug and the preparation of substances of note 1 above. (3) "Small Quantity" and "Commercial Quantity" with respect to cultivation of opium poppy is not specified separately as the offence in this regard is covered under clause (c) of section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (4) The quantities shown in column 5 and column 6 of the Table relating to the respective drugs shown in column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or any one or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters, ethers and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just its pure drug content." 12. The reasoning of the learned Judge in M.A.Jinna's case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543 is found in paragraphs nos. 21 and 22, which is as under: "21. This Court would begin by informing that the opening words 'any mixture or' in Item No.239 of the table are redundant since Section 2 (xxiii) of the Act which defines 'preparation' places preparation in two distinct slots. The preparation in relation to a Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance means (1) any one or more such drugs or substances in dosage form, or (2) any solution or mixture in whatsoever physical state containing one or more such drugs or substances. It is to be noticed that the word 'or' is used disjunctively. When so understood, it will be seen that use of the asterix mark towards informing what is small or commercial quantity makes clear that the determination therein is only regards the Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance forming part of the mixture as different and distinct from drug or substance in dosage form. When so understood, it will be seen that use of the asterix mark towards informing what is small or commercial quantity makes clear that the determination therein is only regards the Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance forming part of the mixture as different and distinct from drug or substance in dosage form. Insertion of Note No.4 in Item No.239 under S.O. 2941(E), dated 18.11.2009, only further clarifies the position. Such note says that the quantity shown as small or commercial in relation to the respective drugs shall apply to: (1) the entire mixture or (2) any solution or (3) any one or more Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances of that particular drug in dosage form or (4) isomers, esters, ethers and salts or salts thereof, wherever existence of such substance (meaning isomers, esters, ethers, salts or salts thereof) is possible and not just its pure content. In other words, where a drug includes isomers, esters, ethers and salts of the drug or salts thereof, the same shall be added to the drug content for purpose of determining whether the drug/substance falls under small or commercial quantity. 22. The admitted prosecution case is that petitioners were found in possession of 18415 Zolfresh tablets. A reference to Current Index of Medical Specialty (CIMS) informs that Zolfresh is one amongst several tablets wherein tablets with content of Zolpedim in 5 mg or 10 mgs. are sold. In the instant case, what has been seized are 18415 Zolfresh tablets containing 10 mg. Zolpedim each. Therefore, tablets seized from petitioners are in dosage form. When so, the notification in S.O.2941 (E) dated 18.11.2009 would requires determination of small or commercial quantity on the basis of the content of the psychotropic substance of that particular drug (Zolpidem) in dosage form. When so done it will be seen that petitioners were in possession of 184.15 gms. which is below the commercial quantity of 250 gms." 13. To be precise, the learned Judge has held thateach tablet of Zolfresh contains 10 mg. of Zolpidem and he has multiplied it with the number of tablets and the resultant figure, viz., 184.15 gms. has been determined as the quantity seized. Since 184.15 gms. falls between small quantity and commercial quantity, vis-a-vis Zolpidem, the learned Judge has directed the trial Court to frame a charge under Section 22(b) and not for the offence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. has been determined as the quantity seized. Since 184.15 gms. falls between small quantity and commercial quantity, vis-a-vis Zolpidem, the learned Judge has directed the trial Court to frame a charge under Section 22(b) and not for the offence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. In other words, the learned Judge has not taken the entire weight of the tablets seized and has instead, isolated the offending psychotropic substance, viz., Zolpidem from the tablet for the purpose of determining the slot in which the weight should be fitted, in terms of the quantity notification dated 19.10.2001. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, neither the Act nor the Notification provides for such bisection and intersection. The chemical name of Zolpidem tartrate is gamma-aminobutyric acid and its chemical composition is given in the Notification itself, which has been extracted above. Unlike Oxygen, Hydrogen and other elements, Zolpidem is not an element to exist as a stand alone one. Zolpidem is synthetically manufactured by laboratory process. To be very precise, it is usually crystallised as Zolpidem tartrate which will be white to half white. Unlike alcohol which touches the cerebellum and makes the consumer lose his balance, Zolpidem touches certain portions of the cerebral hemisphere and is hypnotic in nature. A restless and sleepless person would go to sleep with a right dosage of the tablet containing Zolpidem. Naturally, an excess of it would make the person rest in peace permanently. It is seldom traded in its pristine crystalline form and instead, it reaches the consumer in tablet form. The manufacturer of tablets containing Zolpidem tartrate should have to obtain a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and this drug, being a Schedule "H" drug, can be dispensed only on the prescription of a qualified medical practitioner. The manufacturer would give his brand name like Zolfresh as in the present case and though the active ingredient in each tablet will be Zolpidem tartrate, yet, the inactive ingredients will be: 1. Lactose 2. Cellulosc 3. Sodium starch (Potato starch) 4. Silcon-di-oxide 5. Talc 6. Magnesium Stearate 7. Hypromellose 8. Polyethylene Glycol 9. Titanium-di-oxide 10. Ferrie oxide (Red) All these inactive ingredients are required to hold that active ingredient, viz., Zolpidem tartrate. 15. Lactose 2. Cellulosc 3. Sodium starch (Potato starch) 4. Silcon-di-oxide 5. Talc 6. Magnesium Stearate 7. Hypromellose 8. Polyethylene Glycol 9. Titanium-di-oxide 10. Ferrie oxide (Red) All these inactive ingredients are required to hold that active ingredient, viz., Zolpidem tartrate. 15. In M.A. jinnah's case, it was easy for the learned Judge to apply the multiplication theory, because, the drug was manufactured by the Abott Company and under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, it was incumbent on the manufacturer to disclose the dosage strength in the strip, on account of which, 10 mg. was found to be printed on the strip. 10 mg. printed on the strip is not the weight of the tablet. The weight of one tablet will approximately be 0.23 gms. 10 mg. would refer to the potency of the active ingredient, viz., Zolpidem and the medical practitioner would prescribe the dosage based on the age, weight and intensity of the ailment of the patient. What would happen if an illicit laboratory manufactures the same tablets in huge quantities without complying with any of the requirements stipulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and distributes the same in ordinary plastic covers to the vulnerable section of the society through middlemen and conduits? Most of the illicit units that manufacture narcotic and psychotropic substances are located in the porous Indo-Pakistan border and these drugs seep into the border States and play great havoc on the social fabric of the society. With this in mind, if one reads the definition of the expressions "psychotropic substances" and "preparation" as defined under the NDPS Act, which read as under, there would be no room for any doubt. 2(xxiii) "psychotropic substance" means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material included in the list of psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule." 2(xx)"preparation", in relation to a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance means any one or more such drugs or substances in dosage form or any solution or mixture, in whatever physical state, containing one or more such drugs or substances; The definition of the word "preparation" gets telescoped and subsumed into the definition of the expression "psychotropic substance". In other words, a preparation containing a psychotropic substance that is listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act is per se a psychotropic substance. In other words, a preparation containing a psychotropic substance that is listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act is per se a psychotropic substance. A tablet containing Zolpidem as active ingredient, together with inactive ingredients listed above, should be construed as a wholesome unit of a psychotropic substance. The inactive ingredients are required as binding agents to hold Zolpidem, the active ingredient, for the purpose of consumption in tablet form. That is why, the Parliament, in its wisdom, while defining the expression "psychotropic substance", had included "preparation" also within the ambit of the definition. The NDPS Act was intended to break the backbone of not only illicit manufacturers of such drugs but also illicit distributors of drugs that are manufactured licitly as in M.A. Jinna's case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543. The isolation theory in which the weight of Zolpidem in each tablet is taken in isolation and multiplied with the number of tablets to arrive at the total quantity in weight of the drug for the purpose of fitting it as small quantity or commercial quantity, will come as a great boon to illicit manufacturers and distributors to escape the legal dragnet. If the isolation theory is to be adopted, then, the investigating agencies can successfully prosecute only those who are illicitly distributing such drugs that are manufactured legally. 16. The following statement in paragraph 21 of M.A. Jinna's case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543 may not reflect the correct legal position. "21. This Court would begin by informing that the opening words 'any mixture or' in Item No.239 of the table are redundant since Section 2 (xxiii) of the Act which defines 'preparation' places preparation in two distinct slots." 17. In the considered opinion of this Court, the expression "any mixture or" in SI. No. 239 of the Notification is not redundant, because, SI. No. 239 is a residuary clause to deal with a situation where a particular substance contains 2 or more species of Narcotic drug/Psychotropic substance. The catch expression in Sl. No. 239 is "of any of the above drugs". 18. Let us take an example where the police seize a substance weighing 150 gms. from an accused. On testing the substance, it was found to contain Alprazolam [SI. No. 30 in the Schedule to the NDPS Act and SI. No. 178 in the quantity notification dated 19.10.2001] and Barbital [SI. No. 239 is "of any of the above drugs". 18. Let us take an example where the police seize a substance weighing 150 gms. from an accused. On testing the substance, it was found to contain Alprazolam [SI. No. 30 in the Schedule to the NDPS Act and SI. No. 178 in the quantity notification dated 19.10.2001] and Barbital [SI. No. 32 in the Schedule to the NDPS Act and SI. No. 181 in the quantity notification dated 19.10.2001]. The small quantity and commercial quantity for Alprazolam is 5 gms. and 100 gms. respectively. Similarly, the small quantity and commercial quantity fixed by the notification dated 19.10.2001 for Barbital is 20 gms. and 500 gms. respectively. The question is, under which SI. No. in the quantity notification, should the seized drug be fitted in, whether as Barbital or Alprazolam, for the purpose of framing charge against the accused. 19. Only to resolve such disputes, Sl.No. 239 has been included as a residuary item and applying the formula enunciated by the asterisk marks given in the footnote of the Notification, the small quantity of the seized substance will be 5 gms. and the commercial quantity of it will be 100 gms. Since the accused was in possession of 150 gms. of the substance, he will have to be prosecuted under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act for possession of commercial quantity. He cannot be heard to say that the commercial quantity for Barbital which is 500 gms., should be reckoned and that since he was in possession of only 150 gms., he should be prosecuted only under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act. The example discussed in the preceding paragraph, viz., paragraph no.18, can be better explained by way of the following tabular column. SI. No. Drug Name Small quantity Commercial quantity 178 Alprazolam 5 gms. 100 gms. 181 Barbital 20 gms. 500 gms. Seized drug 5 gms 100 gms. Alprazolam & Barbital 20. At the risk of repetition, SI. No. 239 of the Notification dated 19.10.2001 deals with a substance containing 2 or more species of narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances and will not apply to the presence of a single species of a narcotic drug/psychotropic substance. 21. 181 Barbital 20 gms. 500 gms. Seized drug 5 gms 100 gms. Alprazolam & Barbital 20. At the risk of repetition, SI. No. 239 of the Notification dated 19.10.2001 deals with a substance containing 2 or more species of narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances and will not apply to the presence of a single species of a narcotic drug/psychotropic substance. 21. In E. Michael Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau [(2008) 2 SCC (Cri.) 558], the isolation theory was adopted in respect of heroin and only to get over that, the notification dated 19.10.2001 was amended on 18.11.2009 with the inclusion of footnote no.4 to the notification. The constitutional validity of this amendment has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Sadiq Basha v. Union of India in W.P.No.28702 of 2015 dated 01.10.2015 and John Paul v. Union of India in W.P.No.28715 of 2015 dated 01.10.2015. The said amendment also came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in M. Veludurain v. State, rep. by the Superintendent of Customs, Special Narcotic Cell, Nagercoil [(2012) 1 L.W.(Cri) 70], wherein, fire Division Bench held that post 18.11.2009, purity test need not be performed. In para 23 of M.A.Jinna's case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543, the learned Judge has stated that he finds support from the reasoning in the decision of the Apex Court in Mohd. Sahahuddin and another v. State of Assam [(2012) 13 SCC 491], whereas, on a closer scrutiny of the said judgment, it is seen that it is opposed to the isolation theory propounded in M.A.Jinna's case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543, as could be seen from para nos. 10, 11 and 12 of Mohd. Sahabuddin's case which are as under: "10. It is not in dispute that each 100 ml bottle of Phensedyl cough syrup contained 183.15 to 189.85 mg of codeine phosphate and the each 100 ml bottle of Recodex cough syrup contained 182.73 mg of codeine phosphate. 10, 11 and 12 of Mohd. Sahabuddin's case which are as under: "10. It is not in dispute that each 100 ml bottle of Phensedyl cough syrup contained 183.15 to 189.85 mg of codeine phosphate and the each 100 ml bottle of Recodex cough syrup contained 182.73 mg of codeine phosphate. When the appellants were not in a position to explain as to whom the supply was meant either for distribution or for any licensed dealer dealing with pharmaceutical products and in the absence of any other valid explanation for effecting the transportation of such a huge quantity of the cough syrup which contained the narcotic substance of codeine phosphate beyond the prescribed limit, the application for grant of bail cannot be considered based on the above submissions made on behalf of the appellants. 11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the content of the codeine phosphate in each 100 ml bottle if related to the permissible dosage, namely, 5 ml would only result in less than 10 mg of codeine phosphate thereby would fall within the permissible limit as stipulated in the Notifications dated 14-11-1985 and 29-1-1993. As rightly held by the High Court, the said contention should have satisfied the twin conditions, namely, that the contents of the narcotic substance should not be more than 100 mg of codeine, per dose unit and with a concentration of not more than 2.5% in undivided preparation apart from the other condition, namely, that it should be only for therapeutic practise. Therapeutic practise as per dictionary meaning means "contributing to cure of disease". In other words, the assessment of codeine content on dosage basis can only be made only when the cough syrup is definitely kept or transported which is exclusively meant for its usage for curing a disease and as an action of remedial agent. 12. As pointed out by us earlier, since the appellants had no documents in their possession to disclose as to for what purpose such a huge quantity of Schedule H drug containing narcotic substance was being transported and that too stealthily, it cannot be simply presumed that such transportation was for therapeutic practise as mentioned in the Notifications dated 14-11-1985 and 29-1-1993. Therefore, if the said requirement meant for therapeutic practise is not satisfied then in the event of the entire 100 ml content of the cough syrup containing the prohibited quantity of codeine phosphate is meant for human consumption, the same would certainly fall within the penal provisions of the NDPS Act calling for appropriate punishment to be inflicted upon the appellants. Therefore, the appellants' failure to establish the specific conditions required to be satisfied under the above-referred to notifications, the application of the exemption provided under the said notifications in order to consider the appellants' application for bail by the courts below does not arise." 22. From a reading of the above judgment, it is beyond cavil that the Supreme Court has rejected this isolation theory and has proceeded to take into consideration the entire quantity of the seized drug. 23. Under ordinary circumstances, if there is any disagreement on interpretation of law between two single Judges, the latter should refer the matter to a Division Bench for resolution. However, in this case, there is no dispute in the interpretation of any statutory provision. Had the catch expression in SI. No. 239 "of any of the above drugs" (implying plurality of drugs) been brought to the notice of the learned Judge who decided M.A.Jinna's case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543, the result would have been otherwise. 24. In Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2011) 4 SCC 441 ], the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider entry 4 to the footnote that was introduced with effect from 18.11.2009, wherein, it is stated as follows: "Thus, it is evident that under the aforesaid Notification, the whole quantity of material recovered in the form of mixture is to be considered for the purpose of imposition of punishment." 25. In M.A.Jinna's case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543, the seizure was on 12.12.2015, which is post 18.11.2009 and therefore, the law laid down in Harjit Singh's case should have squarely applied. 26. At this juncture, it may be apposite to extract the following from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Rural Development Authority and another v. L.G.Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors [ (2012) 3 SCC 495 ]: "28. The principle of per incuriam has been very succinctly formulated by the Court of Appeal in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. 26. At this juncture, it may be apposite to extract the following from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Rural Development Authority and another v. L.G.Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors [ (2012) 3 SCC 495 ]: "28. The principle of per incuriam has been very succinctly formulated by the Court of Appeal in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. [1944 KB 718 (CA)] Lord Greene, Master of Rolls formulated the principles on the basis of which a decision can be said to have been rendered "per incuriam". The principles are: (KB p. 729) "... Where the court has construed a statute or a rale having the force of a statute its decision stands on the same footing as any other decision on a question of law, but where the court is satisfied that an earlier decision was given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or a rale having the force of a statute the position is very different. It cannot, in our opinion, be right to say that in such a case the court is entitled to disregard the statutory provision and is bound to follow' a decision of its own given when that provision was not present to its mind. Cases of this description arc examples of decisions given per incuriam." 29. The decision in Young [1944 KB 718 (CA)] was subsequently approved by the House of Lords in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. [1946 AC 163 (HL)], AC at p. 169 of the Report. Lord Viscount Simon in the House of Lords expressed His Lordship's agreement with the views expressed by Lord Greene, the Master of Rolls in the Court of Appeal on the principle of per incuriam (see the speech of Lord Viscount Simon in Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. case [1946 AC 163 (HL)], AC at p. 169 of the Report). 30. Those principles have been followed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1955 SC 661 : (1955)2 SCR 603 ] (see the discussion in SCR at pp. 622 and 623 of the Report). 31.The same principle has been reiterated by Lord Evershed, Master of Rolls, in Morelle Ld. v. Wakeling [ (1955) 2 QB 379 (CA)], QB at p. 406. The principle has been stated as follows: "... 622 and 623 of the Report). 31.The same principle has been reiterated by Lord Evershed, Master of Rolls, in Morelle Ld. v. Wakeling [ (1955) 2 QB 379 (CA)], QB at p. 406. The principle has been stated as follows: "... As a general rule the only cases in which decisions should be held to have been given per incuriam are those of decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned; so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based is found, on that account, to be demonstrably wrong." 27. From the above, this Court is of the view that the order in M.A. Jinna's case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543 is per incuriam, as it runs counter not only to the statute, per se, but also to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Harjit Singh's case and Mohd. Sahabuddin's case. 28. Coming to the facts of the case at hand, the petitioners/accused are attempting to take umbrage under M.A. Jinna's. case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543 by confining their cases only to the seizures effected from them individually. In the opinion of this Court, such a test cannot be applied to the present case, because, the seizures have been effected from different accused in the course of a single transaction as set down in the introductory paragraph above. The prosecution materials prima facie show that A1 to A5 were operating with common intention and therefore, Section 34 IPC can also be invoked at any time by the Court and it is not necessary that there should be a specific charge, because Section 34 IPC does not create any new offence, but is only a rule of evidence. There is a misconception that provisions like Section 34, IPC, can be used only for convicting the offender for the offences under the Indian Penal Code alone. A bare reading of Section 34, IPC, would show that the framers have used the expression "criminal acts" and not "offence". The word "offence" has been defined under Section 40, IPC, which limits its application to the Indian Penal Code alone. A bare reading of Section 34, IPC, would show that the framers have used the expression "criminal acts" and not "offence". The word "offence" has been defined under Section 40, IPC, which limits its application to the Indian Penal Code alone. The usage of the expression "criminal acts" in Section 34, IPC is wider than the word "offence" and therefore, Section 34, IPC, can lend itself to other penal legislations as it is only a rule of evidence and not a substantive penal provision. 29. Before parting with the matter, a brief recount of the reasons for the sudden spurt in the trafficking of psychotropic substances may not be out of place. Post World War II, the Governments of the West have managed to ensure the three basic requirements, viz., food, clothing and shelter for their citizens. But, humans will not remain content with that. Western civilisation got moulded by the influence of Epicurian and Benthamite thoughts that the pursuit of happiness is the cardinal goal of life. In fact, one of the tripods on which the American democracy rests, is the pursuit of happiness and the other two being, the right to freedom and liberty. Biologically, happiness is defined as the experience of pleasant sensations. In competitive societies, people will seldom get their due attention and recognition that would naturally stimulate pleasant sensations. When people fail to get due attention and recognition, they tend to suffer mental depression and other disorders like Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) & Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHT). Bio-chemical laboratories in the West found a panacea to such disorders by inventing chemically manufactured drugs to address certain portions of the cerebral hemispheres in the brain for inducing pleasant sensations, artificially, and keeping the users happy. Such inducement and the consequences of it, have been best explained by the celebrated author Yuval Noah Harari, in his recent masterpiece Homo Deus - A Brief History of Tomorrow (Penguin, Random House, UK 2016) and it is worth extracting the following passage from Page 40 of his locus classic us: "The biochemical pursuit of happiness is also the number one cause of crime in the world. In 2009 half of the inmates in US federal prisons got there because of drugs; 38 per cent of Italian prisoners were convicted of drug-related offences; 55 per cent of inmates in the UK reported that they committed their crimes in connection with either consuming or trading drugs. A 2001 report found that 62 per cent of Australian convicts were under the influence of drugs when committing the crime for which they were incarcerated. People drink alcohol to forget, they smoke pot to feel peaceful, they take cocaine and methamphetamines to be sharp and confident, whereas Ecstasy provides ecstatic sensations and LSD sends you to meet Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. What some people hope to get by studying, working or raising a family, others try to obtain far more easily through the right dosage of molecules. This is an existential threat to the social and economic order, which is why countries wage a stubborn, bloody and hopeless war on biochemical crime. The state hopes to regulate the biochemical pursuit of happiness, separating 'bad' manipulations from 'good' ones. The principle is clear : biochemical manipulations that strengthen political stability, social order and economic growth are allowed and even encouraged (e.g. those that calm hyperactive kids in school, or drive anxious soldiers forward into battle). Manipulations that threaten stability and growth are banned. But each year new drugs are born in the research labs of universities, pharmaceutical companies and criminal organisations, and the needs of the state and the market also keep changing. As the biochemical pursuit of happiness accelerates, so it will reshape politics, society and economics, and it will become ever harder to bring it under control." (emphasis supplied) 30. As explained by the author, the consumption of such psychotropic substances not only keeps the user in perpetual happiness but also makes him sharp and confident to do any crime. The malaise that has affected the West has also reached the East, as information technology has successfully shrunk geographical boundaries and the world as such. 31. In the result, the petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.