Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Kumar Alias Banti vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 2012
Crl. Misc. No.M-325 of 2012 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-325 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 9th, 2012
Vijay Kumar alias Banti .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab,
for the State.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Vijay Kumar alias Banti has sought regular bail by way of this petition brought under the provisions of section 439 Cr. P.C. in a case registered by way of FIR No. 59 dated 27.7.2011 at Police Station Boha, District Mansa for an offence punishable under section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act").
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was apprehended with 70 bottles of REXCOF. According to him, it is a cough syrup prepared by Cipla, a leading drug manufacturing unit at Mumbai. He drew my attention to Annexure P1, a copy of the note Crl. Misc. No.M-325 of 2012 2 ..
sent from Cipla to all drug distributors, which says that Rexcof syrup is exempted from the provisions of the Act by Government notification S.O. 826(E) dated 14.11.1985. He has drawn my attention in this regard to the contents of the aforesaid notification and simultaneously referred me to the report of the Chemical Examiner, who has found codeine content of the syrup to be 9.8 mg. per 5 ml. of the syrup. According to him, this content of codeine brings the medicine in the ambit of the aforesaid notification at Sr. No. 35 and, therefore, it is exempt from the provisions of the Act.
Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that the petitioner is not a Chemist and there is another case against the petitioner.
It is a fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 6 months and the trial is yet to begin. The question as to whether the cough syrup recovered from the petitioner would be covered by the Act or not, would be decided at the trial in the light of the above mentioned notification of the Government.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the petitioner appears to be entitled to bail. The petition is, consequently, allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE February 9th, 2012 som