Gujarat High Court
Govindbhai Valabhai Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 18 August, 2023
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5807 of 2023
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9002 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
======================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
======================================
GOVINDBHAI VALABHAI PRAJAPATI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
======================================
Appearance:
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5807 of 2023
A S TIMBALIA(7372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS CM SHAH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9002 of 2023
MR JAYESH DAVE for MS URMILA DESAI for the Applicant(s) No.
1
MS CM SHAH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
======================================
Page 1 of 16
Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 18/08/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] Both these applications are filed by the accused praying for regular bail, post submission of charge-sheet, under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with offence registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City at C.R. No.1119101220180 of 2022 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act').
[2.0] Both the accused came to be arrested on 30.12.2022, pursuant to the FIR registered as they were found to be in possession of 120 and 119 bottles of cough syrup, which is said to have been manufactured by C.B. Healthcare containing stickers on the bottles of Codeine Phosphate & Chlorpheniramine Maleate Syrup marketed by WEXCARE HEALTHCARE, on the charges that they possessed manufactured drugs, which is punishable under 'the NDPS Act'. Both the accused were asked about the licence, if any, for possession thereof, which was replied in negative. After drawing the sample from bottles of cough syrup, sample as also the remaining stock were sealed and seized. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused - Govind Valabhai Prajapati used to obtain the stock of cough syrup bottles from one Medical Shop at Gota, without bills and used to sell it for his own financial benefits to accused - Shivrajsinh Uttamsinh Page 2 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined Rajput, without any licence or even bills. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused - Shivrajsinh Uttamsinh Rajput used to sell it of in the market.
[2.1] Pursuant to their arrest, both the accused preferred an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the Court of Sessions, which came to be rejected, and therefore, the applicants have preferred the aforesaid applications.
[3.0] Heard Mr. A.S. Timbalia, learned advocate for the accused - Govind Valabhai Prajapati and Mr. Jayesh Dave, learned advocate for Ms Urmila Desai, learned advocate for the applicant - accused - Shivrajsinh Uttamsinh Rajput.
[4.0] Mr. Timbalia, learned advocate appearing for the applicant in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5807 of 2023 submitted that the accused - Govind Valabhai Prajapati is the licence holder, to posses the drug, issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1940') and the relevant Rules, which is annexed with the application at page 17 in "Form 20B". It is submitted that he is the proprietor of Anand Medico, who has the licence to sell, stock or exhibit (or offer) for sale, or distribute by wholesale drugs other than those specified in Schedule C, C(1) and X on the premises situated at Shop No. DD/6, First Floor, Raj Bunglows Shopping Center, Nr. Swagat Hall, Balkrishna Mandir Road, Ranip, Ahmedabad, which was issued and in force from 18.11.2017 to 17.11.2022, and therefore, according to his submission, since he is the licence holder to possess the drugs, Page 3 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined he cannot be said to have committed any offence, that too, an offence under 'the NDPS Act'. He has further submitted that the cough syrup, which is manufactured by the manufacturer under the manufacturing licence issued under 'the Act, 1940', the cough syrup, which is the final product, cannot be said to be narcotic drug so as to attract the provisions of 'the NDPS Act'. In support of his aforesaid submission, he has relied on the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 14.11.1985 in exercise of powers conferred by Sub Clause (b) of Clause (xi) of Section 2 of 'the NDPS Act' notifying several narcotic substances and preparations to be manufactured drugs and vide entry No.35, Methyl Morphine, (commonly known as Codeine), all dilutions and preparation except those which are compounded with one or more other ingredients and containing not more than 100 milligrams of the drug per dosage unit and with a concentration of not more than 2.5% in undivided preparations and which have been established in therapeutic practice, and therefore, the submission is that since cough syrup having 'Codeine' is compounded with other ingredients and within the limit as prescribed under Entry No.35 of the aforesaid notification, the manufacture, possession or sell thereof is exempted from the rigors of 'the NDPS Act' and it would be governed under 'the Act, 1940'. Drawing attention of the Court to the FIR, it is submitted that as found from the sticker affixed on the bottle, one bottle contained 100 ml and composition thereof is mentioned "each 5 ml contains : Chlorpheniramine Maleate IP 4 mg, Codeine Phosphate IP 10 mg, and therefore, according to the submission of the learned advocate for the applicant, the cough syrup bottle found cannot be said to be a manufactured Page 4 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined drug to term it narcotic drug, and therefore, if not acquittal or discharge of the accused at this stage, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that even if it falls within the definition of narcotic drugs or attracts the provisions of 'the NDPS Act', since one bottle of 100 ml contains 200 mg codeine and total 239 bottles, which are seized in this case contains 47.800 gm codeine, it would be less than the commercial quantity, and therefore, rigors of Section 37 of 'the NDPS Act' would not be applicable. Drawing attention of the Court to the orders passed by this Court, in one of the application, it is submitted that in the cases of possession of cough syrup bottles, this Court has released several accused on bail with certain conditions.
[5.0] Mr. Jayesh Dave, learned advocate for Ms. Urmila Desai, learned advocate for the applicant in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9002 of 2023 submitted that the accused - Shivrajsinh Uttamsinh Rajput was an employee in a Medical Store situated at Gota and he was doing his job as per the instructions given by the owner of the Medical Shop and it is submitted that he was not doing any illegal activity. He has further submitted that the accused - Shivrajsinh Uttamsinh Rajput studied up to Standard XII th and was not knowing about the contents of the medicine and as a part of his job, he used to deliver the goods to the Medical Store as per the instructions given by the Medical Shop owner, and therefore, it is submitted that the accused - Shivrajsinh Uttamsinh Rajput cannot not be said to have committed any offence under 'the NDPS Act'.
Page 5 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined [5.1] Learned advocates appearing for the applicants - accused further submitted that since charge-sheet is already filed, there is no question of tampering with the evidence or witnesses since they are having their roots in the society, they are not likely to abscond. Learned advocates for the applicants submitted that they have no criminal antecedents, and therefore, they are required to be released on bail as they are in custody since more than 7 ½ months by now. In support of their submission, learned advocates for the applicants relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd. Ahsan Vs. Customs rendered in Bail Application No.1136/2021 dated 16.09.2022 reported in 2022 SC Online Del 2910; decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Raghav Saini Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh rendered in Cr.MP(M) No.2866 of 2022 and other allied matters dated 26.06.2023; decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Vibhor Rana Vs. Union of India reported in 2021 SCC OnLine All 908 and the decision of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos.13598, 16124, 23683, 2986 of 2022 as also Criminal Application No.197 of 2023 in support of their claim of regular bail.
[6.0] As against that, Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the applicants have committed an offence under 'the NDPS Act' and possession of cough syrup bottles, which contains 'Codeine' as an ingredient is a manufactured drug, and therefore, it satisfies the definition of narcotic drug, and therefore, its possession without any authority of law or licence would be an offence under 'the NDPS Act'. She has further submitted that in view of the Page 6 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hira Singh and Another Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2020) 20 SCC 272, the entire quantity and not only the contents of 'Codeine in cough syrup is to be considered to come to a conclusion that the accused possessed not only jointly but individually, the commercial quantity, and therefore, rigors of Section 37 of 'the NDPS Act' would be applicable, and therefore, unless the Court comes to a conclusion that prima facie the accused cannot be said to have committed an offence, they cannot be granted bail, and therefore, she has submitted that the bail applications preferred by the applicants are required to be rejected.
[7.0] Having heard the learned advocates for the applicants as also learned Additional Public Prosecutor and going through the decisions relied on by the learned advocates and the provisions of 'the NDPS Act', it emerges that the cough syrup bottles, which are used as a treatment for cough and cold, can be said to be a drug under 'the Act, 1940'. Whether it is a 'narcotic drug' under 'the NDPS Act' is the question to be determined in these bail applications.
[7.1] So far as "codeine" is concerned, it is "opium derivative" as defined under Section 2 (xvi)(c), all opium derivatives are termed as manufactured drug as defined under Section 2(xi) of 'the NDPS Act'. Therefore, it satisfies the definition of ''narcotic drug' as defined under Section 2(xiv) of 'the NDPS Act', and therefore, 'Codeine' is a narcotic drug as defined under 'the NDPS Act'. However, in the year 2014 i.e. with effect from 30.04.2014, the definition of "essential Page 7 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined narcotic drugs" vide Section 2(viiia) is prescribed which means a narcotic drug notified by the Central Government for medical and scientific use. Pursuant to insertion of the said definition, a notification dated 05.05.2015 S.O. 1181(E) came to be issued notifying for medical and scientific use the 'essential narcotic drugs, which includes codeine "to be essential narcotic drugs". However, an exception is provided, if 'Codeine' is compounded with one or more other ingredients containing not more than 100 milligrammes of the drug per dosage unit and with a concentration of not more than 2.5% in undivided preparations and which have been established in therapeutic practice. While defining "essential narcotic drugs" an amendment in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') came to be introduced by way of third amendment adding certain definitions and inserting Chapter VA in 'the Rules', which contains Rule 52A to 52ZA. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 52A of 'the Rules' provides that no person shall possess any 'essential narcotic drug' otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 52A provides that a registered medical practitioner is allowed to possess 'essential narcotic drug', for use in his practice but not for sale or distribution as also not more than the quantity beyond 2000 milligram. The third amendment in 'the Rules' introduced by notification dated 05.05.2015 added various definitions, including "licenced chemist", "licenced dealer", "prescription", "recognized medical institution" as also "registered medical practitioner". The said definitions also includes Rule 2(he), which defines "prescription".
"Prescription" means a prescription given by a registered medical practitioner for the supply of any of the essential Page 8 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined narcotic drugs to a patient for medical use in accordance with 'the Rules'. So any one who is dealing with 'essential narcotic drugs', which is to be provided to a patient for medical use, has to be by way of a prescription given by registered medical practitioner only. The Central Government by way of notification dated 10.03.2016 vide S.O.881(E) exercising powers conferred under Section 26A of 'the Act, 1940' on the basis of recommendations of Expert Committee prohibited manufacture for sale , sale and distribution for human use of drug fixed dose combination of Chlorpheniramine + Codeine + Sodium Citrate + Menthol Syrup with immediate effect, and therefore, any fixed dose combination with 'Codeine' either of Chlorpheniramine or Sodium Citrate or Menthol Syrup would be prohibited for manufacture for sale, sale or distribution for human use. Thus, any combination of any other drug alongwith 'Codeine' even in fixed dose combination came to be prohibited since 2016, and therefore, any of the applicant could not have kept it in their possession such cough syrup containing 'Codeine' with any other drug combination thereof in the year 2022, and therefore, it is an offence under 'the NDPS Act' and in no case, it can be said that it is exempted from rigors of 'the NDPS Act' and the offence, if any, would fall under 'the Act, 1940'. Not only that, in light of the direction given by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Pfizer Limited reported in Civil Appeal No.22972 of 2017 de novo inquiry was carried out as to whether fixed dose combinations licenced prior to 1988 should be the subject matter of notification under Section 26A of 'the Act, 1940'. The matter came to be examined by the Expert Committee and Drugs Technical Advisory Board Central Government was Page 9 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in the public interest to regulate by way of prohibiting the manufacturer for sale, sale or distribution for human use of fixed dose combination of Chlorpheniramine + Codeine Phosphate + Menthol Syrup with immediate effect in the country, and therefore, in supersession of 10.03.2016 notification, on the basis of recommendations of the Expert Committee and Drugs Technical Advisory Board, Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 26A of 'the Act, 1940', again prohibited the manufacturer for sale, sale or distribution for human use of drug fixed dose combination of Chlorpheniramine + Codeine Phosphate + Menthol Syrup with immediate effect. Thus, "essential narcotic drug", which contains 'Codeine' as one of the ingredient in any fixed dose combination with any other drug came to be prohibited since 2016 either manufacture for sale, sale or distribution for human use, and therefore, the applicants could not have in their possession even such fixed dose combination, the manufacture for sale, sale or distribution for human use, which is prohibited by the Central Government. While introducing the definition of "essential narcotic drugs" it is regulated under 'the Act, 1940', 'the Rules' as also under 'the NDPS Act', Sub Rule (3) of Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1945') provides maintaining of prescription register specially maintained for the purpose and serial number of entry in the Register shall be entered on the prescription. The particulars as mentioned in the said Rule, by licence holder in Form 20, 20A, 20B, 20F, 20G, 21, 21B should be observed by them. The supply of any drug other than those specified in the Schedule X is regulated Page 10 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined in that manner. If Schedule H1 of 'the Rules 1945' is seen, 'Codeine' is included therein at Entry No.20. The supply of any drug falling under Schedule H1 is regulated under Rule 65 of 'the Rules, 1945' directing supply of any drug other than those specified in the Schedule X would be on a prescription of a registered medical practitioner and the licence holder is supposed to record at the time of supply in a prescription register specially maintained for the purpose, the serial number entry in the Register shall also be entered in the prescription of the medical registered practitioner. Thus, without any prescription from a registered medical practitioner, the licence holder is not supposed to supply Schedule H1 drug. At the same time, maintaining prescription register by him and even writing on the prescription, the serial number of his register is to be mentioned in the prescription also. Even the licence holder in Form 20B as claimed by the applicant - Govind Valabhai Prajapati is also supposed to follow 'the Act, 1940' as also 'the Rules, 1945' alongwith 'the NDPS Act' and 'the Rules' framed thereunder. As per the terms of his condition of licence, the licence holder is supposed to sell to a person not holding requisite licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute the drug. Even if he himself, who has produced the licence in Form 20B is valid up to 17.11.2022 and it is place specific licence to store the said drug at the shop mentioned in the licence itself whereas the offence in the present case has come to be committed on 29.12.2022, the date on which he did not possess any such licence nor he has produced any such licence having been renewed thereafter.
[7.2] Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 52 A of 'the Rules' provides Page 11 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined that no person can possess any "essential narcotic drug"
otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of 'the Rules'. Rule 52 B provides provision regarding licenced dealer and licenced chemist obtaining licence to possess, sell, exhibit or offer for sale or distribution by retail or wholesale, "essential narcotic drug" from the competent authority. Even Transport, Transmission by post, courier, rail or road, sale is regulated as provided under Rules 52 C to 52 G of 'the Rules'. Even registered medical practitioners are also conditioned by writing prescription for supply of "essential narcotic drug" as provided under 'the Rules'. Since manufacture for sale, sale or distribution for human use of drug fixed dose combination of Chlorpheniramine + Codeine Phosphate + Menthol Syrup is prohibited by the Central Government there is no medical or scientific use thereof for the treatment of cough and cold remains. Therefore, it cannot be said that it has been established in therapeutic practice.
Therefore dealing in any drug which contained 'Codeine' as ingredient, being "essential narcotic durg" is regulated under 'the NDPS Act', 'the Rules', 'the Act, 1940', 'the Rules, 1945' and any breach thereof is punishable under 'the NDPS Act'.
[7.3] The judgment in the case of Mohd. Ahsan Vs. Customs (Supra) relied on by the learned advocates for the applicants is in no way helpful to the applicants as the fixed dose combination of the drug with codeine is prohibited to be manufactured for sale, sale or distribution for human use so there is no question of it being used for therapeutic practice.
Page 12 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined [7.4] At the same time, the day on which the said case was determined, it escaped the notice of the Court that the term "essential narcotic drug" came to be defined by way of insertion with effect from 30.04.2014 as Section 2(viiia) of 'the NDPS Act' to be a 'narcotic drug' notified by the Central Government for medical and scientific use. Pursuant to the insertion of definition of "essential narcotic drug", a notification also came to be issued notifying certain narcotic drug to be "essential narcotic drug" vide notification dated 05.05.2015 vide S.O 1181(E)). At the same time, dealing with all "essential narcotic drug" is regulated through insertion of 'the Rules' with corresponding insertion of Chapter VA of definitions of "licenced chemist", "licence dealer", "medical institution", "prescription", "recognised medical institution"
and "registered medical practitioner". In view of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 52A of 'the Rules', possession of "essential narcotic drug" otherwise than as prescribed and regulated under the provisions of 'the Rules' would be an offence under Sections 8 and 21 of 'the NDPS Act'. The threshold limit for use in accordance with 'the Rules' is also determined under 'the Rules'. Even possession of registered medical practitioner of "essential narcotic drug" for use in his practice beyond a particular limit is also prohibited.
[7.5] However, bottles of cough syrup, which is prohibited to be manufactured containing 'Codeine' and 'Chlorpheniramine' as fixed dose combination with any other drug, the applicants could not have possessed the same even under the licence if at all it is there. The applicants failed to Page 13 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined show that the possession of aforesaid cough syrup bottles are in accordance with the provisions of 'the NDPS Act' and 'the Rules'. They failed to show any licence to possess, that too, at the place from where they were found in that large quantity. The reliance placed on the decision in the case of Mohd Ahsan (Supra) by the learned advocate for the applicants on both the counts goes against them when it answers the questions 'C' whether 'note 4' of the SO 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001, published in the Gazette of India Extra Pt II, Section 3(ii) dated 19.10.2001 as amended on 18.11.2009 is held applicable to the 'manufactured drug' which contain a miniscule percentage of 'essential narcotic drug' covered under Rule 52 A. The answer recorded by the Court in the said decision is "if the contraband recovered in a particular case is covered by Rule 52A of 'the Rules' then violation of such Rules would be punishable under 'the NDPS Act'". In that situation Note 4 of SO 1055 (E) dated 19.10.2001 would be applicable to such substance including cough syrup. As stated hereinabove, the manufacturer for sale, sale or distribution for human use of drug fixed dose combination, which contains codeine with any other drug, more particularly, Chlorpheniramine is prohibited and the possession thereof, cannot be said to be for any other purpose except sale and it is being prohibited for human use attracting the provisions of 'the NDPS Act'. Not only the total quantity jointly by both the accused but individual quantity contained in the bottles possessed by them, applying the ratio of the judgment relied on by the learned advocate for the applicants in the case of Mohd Ahsan (Supra), which also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hira Singh and Another (Supra) they can be said to Page 14 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined possess commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, and therefore, rigors of Section 37 of 'the NDPS Act' would be applicable in its full force. Furthermore as recorded by Delhi High Court in the aforesaid judgment of Mohd Ahsan (Supra) in paragraph 49 therein amended provisions of 'the NDPS Act' and 'the Rules' defining "essential narcotic drug", inserting Chapter - VA to 'the Rules', providing regulated dealing with "esential narcotic drugs", were not brought to the notice of Divison Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Vibhor Rana (Supra). Therefore, reliance placed thereon by the learned advocate for the applicants is misplaced as discussed hereinabove. Decision relied on by the learned advocates for the applicants in the case of Raghav Saini (Supra) of Himachal Pradesh High Court cannot be pressed into service for the simple reason that it has not considered the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd Ahsan (Supra) as also the definition of "essential narcotic drug" and insertion of Chapter VA in 'the Rules' and provisions made therein. Not only that, Section 54 of 'the NDPS Act' provides for presumption from possession of illicit articles unless and until contrary is proved that the accused has committed an offence under 'the NDPS Act'. Further more Section 35 provides for presumption of the culpable mental state, and therefore, prima facie the applicants cannot escape the liability under 'the NDPS Act'.
[8.0] I am unable to say that, prima facie, accused have not committed an offence under 'the NDPS Act', that too, though possessed commercial quantity attracting minimum sentence of 10 years, which may extend to 20 years as also with fine, which may extend to 2 lakhs of rupees. Over and Page 15 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/5807/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined above that 'Codeine' is a derivative of opium and it is having one time addiction. The offence under 'the NDPS Act' committed by the accused not only ruins an individual but the whole family by an individual and the youth of the country as a result. It is not the case like murder of one or two or more but it is more of youth itself of the country, which cannot be tolerated, and therefore, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicants, and therefore, these applications are rejected.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) siji Page 16 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:06 IST 2023