Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 September, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-28114 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-28114 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-12.9.2012
Jagtar Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for regular bail and emanating from the record, is that, on 20.4.2012, a police party headed by ASI Harbhajan Singh, consisted of other police officials, was present near Raymondwala Chowk. PW Amrik Singh son of Gurdial Singh also reached there. As soon as, the police party reached near the Circular Road of village Jawanharke (place of occurrence), in the meantime, the petitioner-accused was seen coming on his motorcycle, bearing registration No.PB-10-CM-2052 on a metaled road. On seeing the police party, he became perplexed and immediately tried to turn back, but his motor-cycle slipped in that process. He along with his bag fell down on the ground. Some vials and tablets were spread out of the bag on the road. On the basis of suspicion, the accused was apprehended by the police party, who disclosed his name as Jagtar Singh son of Karamjit Singh CRM No. M-28114 of 2012 (O&M) -2- (petitioner).
2. Having completed all the codal formalities and in the wake of search, 150 vials, each containing 100 tablets mark Diatil, (total 15000 tablets) and 14 strips, each containing 80 tablets (total 1120 tablets) were recovered from the bag of the petitioner. After taking samples, the remaining drugs were sealed into separate parcels and taken into possession, vide recovery memo in the presence of independent witness Amrik Singh.
3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that 15000 tablets of Diatil & 1120 tablets of Alprazolam were recovered from the possession of the petitioner without any permit or licence. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of recovery of indicated commercial drugs, the present case was registered against the petitioner, by virtue of FIR No.21 dated 20.4.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 22, 25 & 60 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NDPS Act") by the police of Police Station Kot Dharmu, Distt.Mansa.
4. Having exercised and lost his right of bail before Additional Sessions Judge, now the petitioner-accused has preferred the instant petition for regular bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration CRM No. M-28114 of 2012 (O&M) -3- over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.
6. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that since the manufactured drugs were recovered, no pointed offences are made out and moreover the recovery of commercial quantity of drugs is not proved, so, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
7. As is evident from the record, that according to the prosecution that the commercial quantity of 15000 Tablets of Diatil & 1120 Tablets of Alprazolam were recovered from the possession of the petitioner without any permit or licence. From the lengthy contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the following two questions arise for determination:-
(i) Whether exact quantity (total mass) of the contraband recovered from offender or percentage of Narcotic drugs/ Psychotropic Substances seized is to be taken into consideration in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations? If so its effect.
(ii)Whether Manufacturers, Chemists, Wholesale license holders under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 possessing controlled substances and manufactured drugs/ prescription drugs are also required to comply with the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act, Rules and Order 1993 for their possession? If so its effect.
8. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the identical questions came to be decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Paramjeet Singh, J.) in main Crl.Misc. No.M-9327 of 2012 titled as "Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab" alongwith 20 other connected cases, decided on 1.6.2012. After considering the relevant provisions, rules framed under the NDPS Act, the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and CRM No. M-28114 of 2012 (O&M) -4- various judgments, it was ruled as under:-
Re: Question No.(i)
i) As the contraband seized is either a mixture or a preparation with or without a neutral material, of any Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance falling within the scope of entry No.239 of the notification dated 19.10.2001 issued in S.O.No.1055(E) of the Central Government. It is absolutely necessary to conduct Pure Content Test to ascertain the exact quantity of the Narcotic Drug/Psychotropic Substance contained in the said mixture or preparation. In the absence of Pure Content Test, the whole contraband seized shall not be considered as such. However, in all the cases registered on or after 17.11.2009, there is no necessity to conduct pure content test to ascertain the exact quantity of Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and Manufactured Drugs. The whole contraband seized shall be considered as such even if it comes within the definition of Entry No. 239.
ii) In the case of a contraband, which is neither a mixture nor a preparation falling within the sweep of entry No.239 and if the contraband is a Narcotic Drug/Psychotropic Substance simplicitor, there is no need for Purity Test and in such cases, the entire quantity of Narcotic Drug/Psychotropic Substance shall be taken into consideration for deciding as to whether the same is a small quantity or a commercial quantity or an intermediate quantity for the purpose of conviction and sentence will be imposed accordingly.
9. As regards the question No.2 is concerned, it was held that the manufacturers of manufactured drugs or prescription drugs, chemists, wholesale license holders under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are required to comply with the provisions of NDPS Act, Rules and Order, 1993 for the possession of narcotic drugs, psychotropic and controlled substances.
10. Not only that, the same view was again reiterated by this Court in Crl.Misc.No.M-26790 of 2011 titled as "Santokh Singh Vs. State of Punjab", decided on 30.8.2012. Therefore, the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the CRM No. M-28114 of 2012 (O&M) -5- facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
11. Moreover, it cannot possibly be denied that the tendency and frequency of selling of narcotic drugs, in order to earn easy money and spoiling the basic fabric of our society in Punjab has been tremendously increasing day by day, which needs to be curbed with heavy hands. Therefore, to me, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
12. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the main case, the instant petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.
13. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail.
12.9.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge