Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdarshan Pal Son Of Sh. Pal Mashih vs State Of Punjab on 29 January, 2003
Author: Ashutosh Mohunta
Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta
ORDER Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the charge under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide order dated May 20, 2002 (Annexure P2).
2. The petitioner was found in possession of 10,000 tablets. While in colour having contents of average 2.1 mg. per tablet disphenoxy late hydrochloride. At the time of his arrest he was without any valid permit of licence. For being in possession of the aforesaid tablets, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. F.I.R. No. 300 dated October 8, 2001 was registered at Police Station Barnala.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was employed as a driver with M/s Dayal Medical Hall, Barnala, who are carrying on the business of wholesale and retail chemists and, therefore, to be in possession of the aforesaid drugs was in the natural course of his business. He further stated that the said chemists had a valid licence for keeping in his possession the aforesaid drugs, as mentioned in the charge-sheet. A copy of the licence has been appended as Annexure P7, which was issued in the year 1994 and had continuously been renewed till December 31, 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Deep Kumar v. Punjab State, 1997 (2) R.C.R. 417, and contended that the seized articles were manufactured drugs and that the petitioner was carrying the alleged drug in routine in connection with the business transaction of the said chemists who had valid licence and in these circumstances he has not committed any offence. He has also relied upon another judgment, namely, Rajeev Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1997 (4) R.C.R. 846.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that at the time when the vehicle carrying the drugs was intercepted, the driver could not produce any licence for being in possession of the aforesaid drugs.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I find that the driver, who is carrying the drugs in his vehicle is not supposed to carry the licence. The petitioner was a driver of a licenced chemists and it was natural for him to carry the said drug with him in routine transaction. Thus, the trial Court was not justified in framing the charge against the petitioner and the same stands quashed.
6. The petition is, accordingly, allowed.