Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dwarka Dass vs State Of Punjab on 10 October, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-12663 of 2013
Date of decision: October 10, 2013
Dwarka Dass
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.69 dated 21.08.2012 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is a licenced stockist for the sale of distribution of wholesale drugs. Therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioner.
I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
From the record, I find that firstly in the present case, the recovery is not effected from the chemist shop. Rather, the petitioner Gulati Vineet 2013.10.11 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-12663 of 2013 -2- has been apprehended with a bag in his hand near bridge by the police party and huge quantity of the narcotics Alprazolam Tablets, Parvon-Spas capsules and Phenotil tablets has been recovered, which falls under the commercial quantity. Only the narcotic drugs have been recovered and no other medicine has been recovered from the bag. The copy of the licence also shows that licence has been issued only for biological drugs and special seal has been affixed stating the narcotic drugs as exception.
Therefore, as the quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial, therefore, bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9730 of 2012 titled as Parmanand vs. State of Haryana. I have gone through the photocopy of the order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the order in the facts and circumstances of that case. There is nothing in this order that these medicines do not fall under the NDPS Act nor the bail in commercial quantity has been discussed in this order.
So, petitioner is not entitled to benefit of regular bail. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed.
October 10, 2013 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
Gulati Vineet
2013.10.11 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh