Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Singh Alias Happy vs State Of Punjab on 19 November, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-35997 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-35997 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-19.11.2012
Amandeep Singh alias Happy
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Dr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Rajbir Attri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Having recovered the commercial quantity/heavy recovery of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances in question, including the recovery of 900 capsules of Parvon Spas, 100 injections, 50 vials of Rescof Syrup etc. from the possession of petitioner-accused and having completed all the statutory procedures, a criminal case was registered against him and his other co-accused, by means of FIR No.122 dated 4.6.2012 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NDPS Act") by the police of Police Station Sri Muktsar Sahib (Punjab).
2. The first petition, vide CRM No. M-22118 of 2012 titled as "Amandeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab" for regular bail filed by petitioner Amandeep Singh alias Happy was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court, by virtue of order dated 26.7.2012. Now, he has preferred the instant 2nd CRM No. M-35997 of 2012 (O&M) 2 petition for the grant of regular bail in the indicated case, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.PC.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present 2nd petition as well.
4. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that firm of the petitioner was authorized to possess the recovered manufactured drugs and since the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, so, he is entitled to concession of regular bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
5. Above being the position of recovery of pointed drugs on record, now the short & significant question, though important, that arises for consideration in this petition, is as to whether any offence punishable under sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act is made out against the accused or not?
6. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner, to me, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative in this relevant direction. This matter is no more res integra & is now well settled.
7. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in Crl.Misc. No. M-33959 of 2012 titled as "Parmanand Vs. State of Haryana & Ors." decided on 2.11.2012. Having considered the relevant provisions, rules and order framed under the NDPS Act and other relatable provisions, it was ruled as under (para 19):- CRM No. M-35997 of 2012 (O&M) 3
"Therefore, if the crux of the pointed relevant legal provisions of the NDPS Act, as discussed here-in-above, is put together, then, to my mind, the conclusion is inescapable & irresistible that the possession, sale & purchase etc. of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances falling within the domain of Table/Schedule appended thereto, in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act, rules & order framed thereunder, is not only patently illegal, but is punishable as well under sections 8, 21 and 22 of NDPS Act, relevant rules & order. In this manner, the petitioner-accused cannot escape his penal liability in this relevant connection. At the same time, the mere fact that the firm of the petitioner-accused was having a licence under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, would not automatically authorize him to possess such Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, ipso-facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, to exonerate him from such violation and will not operate a bar to prosecute him in the instant case, as contemplated under Section 80 of the NDPS Act. In case, the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner-accused are accepted as such, then, to me, the very purpose, aims & objects of the NDPS Act, would pale into insignificance and thereby inculcate & perpetuate injustice to the public at large."
8. The same view was earlier taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Paramjeet Singh, J.) in CRM No.M-9327 of 2012 titled as "Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab" decided on 1.6.2012.
9. It is not a matter of dispute that as the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances recovered from the possession of petitioner fall within the ambit of Table/Schedule appended to NDPS Act, therefore, the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances as the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to CRM No. M-35997 of 2012 (O&M) 4 the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.
10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the commercial quantity of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the cases of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
11. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect, on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition.
19.11.2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
AS JUDGE
Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No