Punjab-Haryana High Court
Himanshu Mittal vs State Of Punjab on 11 October, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M-5749 of 2008 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 5749 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.10.2012.
Himanshu Mittal ........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Beant Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.
.....
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 180 dated 19.9.2007 under Section 420/188 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) (added later on) registered at Police Station Moga and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Vide order dated 5.3.2008, the matter was referred to the committee constituted by the State Government to see whether the case of the petitioner was covered under the Act or not.
The committee vide its report has opined as under:-
"Review Committee have gone through the case file and Concerned record of this case. Himanshu Mittal was not having any valid drugs sales licenses. However father of Himanshu Mittal, Sh. Satish Kumar S/O Sh. Crl. Misc. No. M-5749 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Durga Dass was prop. (owner) of firm M/s Satish Medical Store, Akalsar Chowk, Moga, having valid retain sale drugs sale licenses 20-15842/NB and 21- 15842/B granted on 2.5.2002 valid upto 1.5.2007 and applied for renewal. The licenses of the firm were cancelled by licensing authority on 29.9.2008. Sh. Deepak Jaidka S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal Jaidka was employed qualified person of the firm photocopies of licenses and cancellation orders are attached herewith. All the drugs and allopathic drugs which can be stocked for sale under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by virtue of rule 66 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules 1985 by a person bearing valid drugs sale licenses. Action can be taken against the accused under Rule 65 and Section 18-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940/Rules 1945 for not showing valid purchase record/source of acquisition at the time of raid. For taking action under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940/Rules 1945 provisions of Section 21, 22, 23 of the said act have to be complied. The FSL report No. 1142/07/Taxi/FSL/Pb.Dt. 20-12-2007 was also scrutinized by the undersigned. The Drugs Dicyclomine Hydrochloride,, Paracetamol, Atropine Sulphate, Chlorpheniramine Maleate are all alopathic drugs and are not covered under NDPS Act, 1985. The details of other three drugs are as follows 2 Diphenoxylate is present at serial no. 58 of the list of Notification 826(E) dated 14-11-1985 Crl. Misc. No. M-5749 of 2008 (O&M) -3- Dextropropoxyphene is present at seial no. 87 of the list of Notification 826(E) dated 14.11.1985. Codeine Phosphate is present at serial no. 35 of the list of Notification 826(E) dated 14.11.1985.
Himanshu Mittal did not produce Drug licence at the time of occurrence, for the Drugs recovered from him on the date of recovery. Hence, committee is of opinion that Himanshu Mittal may be prosecuted under Section 18-A of Drug & Cosmetics Act, 1940. Action can be taken against the accused under Rule 65 and Section 18-A of Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940/Rules 1945 for not showing valid purchase record/source of acquisition at the time of raid."
Thus, in view of the opinion of the committee, no offence under the Act is made out. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 180 dated 19.9.2007 under Section 420/188 IPC and Section 22 of the Act (added later on) registered at Police Station Moga and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
The Drug Inspector would be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.
(SABINA) JUDGE October 11, 2012 Gurpreet