Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilbag Singh @Bagga vs State Of Punjab on 25 July, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
CRM No.M-38239 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 38239 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: July 25, 2012.
Dilbag Singh @Bagga.
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Punjab.
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. D.S.Pheruman,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.
*****
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. 65 dated 02.06.2011, under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'the NDPS Act') registered at police station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran dismissing bail application filed by the petitioner.
CRM No.M-38239 of 2011 2
Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that, he was intercepted by the police while carrying polythene bag in black colour in his right hand and on search, the same was found containing intoxicating powder weighing 500 gms. On being analysed by the Chemical Examiner, report was received to the effect that the same contained 64.28% of Amphetamine Sulphate.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that Amphetamine Sulphate is not one of the psychotropic substances as per the Schedule attached with the NDPS Act and hence, it is contended that the recovery cannot be said to be covered under the NDPS Act.
On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent-State that Amphetamine has been mentioned as entry 16 of the Schedule attached with the NDPS Act and that as per entry 111 salt and preparation of Amphetamine also comes within the definition of psychotropic substance. It is further contended that as per notification no. S.O. 2941(E), dated the 18th November, 2009 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, entire bulk is to be seen to determine as to whether the recovered material comes within the definition of commercial or non-commercial.
As per report of Chemical Examiner, Annexure P2, the recovered material was containing Amphetamine Sulphate to the extent of 64.28%. The salt Amphetamine has been mentioned at entry 16 of the Schedule attached with the NDPS Act.
CRM No.M-38239 of 2011 3
It is relevant to reproduce Section 2(xxiii) of the NDPS Act, which reads as under:-
"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.
Substance Amphetamine has been specified in the Schedule attached with the NDPS Act. Hence, even if it is taken that Amphetamine Sulphate is preparation of Amphetamine alongwith some other salt or some other substance, the same comes within the definition of psychotropic substances and hence, punishable under the NDPS Act.
Hence, keeping in view these facts and in view of bar created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, petitioner-accused is not entitled for concession of bail. Hence, without expressing anything on the merit of the case, the instant application for bail filed on behalf of Dilbag Singh @Bagga is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 25, 2012. JUDGE 'om'