Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chandan Jain vs State Of H.P on 12 July, 2016
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
CrMMO No. 151 of 2016 Decided on: 12.7.2016 ______________________________________________________ Chandan Jain. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________ of Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
rt Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. A.G. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral).
The present petition has been instituted under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.65 dated 29.4.2013 registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan for offence under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity sake) and also order dated 10.11.2014 framing the charge under section 21 of the Act, consequent charge sheet dated 10.11.2014 and all subsequent proceedings.1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:47:56 :::HCHP 22. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this .
petition are that FIR No. 65 dated 29.4.2013 was registered at Police Station, Baddi against the petitioner with the allegations that petitioner alongwith Baldev Singh son of Prem Singh, resident of Ambala City was found in possession of 60 boxes of Spasmo Proxyvon capsules having Batch No. of JN10154 with manufacturing date of February, 2013. Total capsules were found to be 8640 containing Dicyclomine rt Hydrochloride 10 mg, Dextropropoxyphene Napsilate 100 mg and Acetaminophen 400 mg. Petitioner alongwith co-accused was also found to be in possession of two boxes of Microlit tablets having 100 packets each containing 100 tablets in a box. Total number of tablets came to be 10000 having Batch No. BT1202005 with manufacturing date of February, 2012.
Each tablet contained Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride 2.5 mg and Antropine Sulphate 0.025 mg. They were also found in possession of another 49 bottles each contained 100 tablets of Lomotil. Total number of tablets came to be 4900 having Batch No. 03L2064 with manufacturing date July, 2012.
Each tablet contained Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride 2.5 mg and Atropine Sulphate 0.025 mg. They were also found in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:47:56 :::HCHP 3 possession of 15 strips of tablets equilibrium. Total number .
of tablets came to be 150 having Batch No.J.M.T.13001 with manufacturing date January, 2013. Each tablet contained Chlordiazepoxide 10 mg. The recovered medicines were forwarded to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Himachal Pradesh for analysis. The report of State Forensic Science of Laboratory is dated 13.5.2013. The quantitative analysis reveals as under:
rt "Spasmo Proxyvon-the test indicated the presence of Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate to the extent of 99.763 mg per capsule.
Microlit-the test indicated the presence of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride to the extent of 2.533 mg per tablet.
Lomtil- the test indicated the presence of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride to the extent of 2.487 mg per tablet.
Equilibrium- the test indicated the presence of Chlordiazepoxide to the extent of 9.91 mg per tablet."
3. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the petitioner is real brother of Ms. Chandni Jain daughter of Sh. Gulshan Jain, proprietor of M/s Jain Medical Agency, Shop No.7, Patel Nagar, Ambala City having wholesale drugs licences in Form 20-B and Form 21-B of Schedule 'A' of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
The licences issued in the name of M/s Jain Medical Agency were valid w.e.f. 18.8.2008 to 17.8.2013. Petitioner was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:47:56 :::HCHP 4 entitled to sell, stock, exhibit or offer for sale or distribute .
these medicines by virtue of licences issued by the Food and Drugs Administration, Haryana under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Investigation was completed and challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities.
of
4. The charges were framed on 10.11.2014.
According to order dated 10.11.2014, prima facie there were rt sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons for the commission of offence punishable under section 21 of the Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 15.1.2015. The charge framed against the accused dated 10.11.2014 is also placed on record. The licence was issued by the State Drug Controller, Haryana to Ms. Chandni Jain. According to the condition of licence issued in Form 20 (b) and 21 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, the sale shall be made under the supervision of competent person, Sh. Ajish Jain.
M/s Jain Medical Agency was licensed to stock or exhibit or offer for sale or distribute by wholesale drugs in the premises situated at Shop No.7, Patel Nagar Amabala City. The firm, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:47:56 :::HCHP 5 i.e. M/s Jain Medical Agency was never authorized to .
distribute the medicines/drugs throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh by way of authorization. The Special Power of Attorney dated 17.1.2013 is against the conditions of licence.
5. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua has drawn the attention of of the Court to various documents to substantiate that her clients were authorized to distribute the medicines/drugs.
rt However, fact of the matter is that when the petitioner applied for bail, these documents were not annexed with the bail application. Thus, it is evident that these documents were procured after the bail application was rejected. In case the petitioner and co-accused were in possession of these documents, there was no reason that they have not placed the same on record at the time of seeking bail.
6. Prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and co-accused and framing of charge against them by the trial court is after due application of mind. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the order dated 10.11.2014.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:47:56 :::HCHP 67. Whether the drugs/medicines recovered from the .
petitioner falls within the ambit of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 shall not be the subject matter of the trial.
8. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the of petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.
rt It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case.
(Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
12.7.2016 *awasthi* ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:47:56 :::HCHP