Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Malhotra vs State Of Punjab on 16 July, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M-39302 of 2007 (O&M) -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-39302 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.7.2012.
Ashok Malhotra ........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D.S. Sandhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
.....
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 121 dated 31.08.2005 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) registered at Police Station Division No.5, Jalandhar (Annexure P-2) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Vide order dated 22.1.2009, 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:-
"The committee have gone through the concerned record of this case. The FSL report No. 493/05/Toxi/FSL/PB dated 26.10.2005 reveals the Crl. Misc. No. M-39302 of 2007 (O&M) -2 - presence of the drugs salts Diclofenac sodium, Paracetamol, Dextropropoxyphene hydrochloride. Promethazine-hydrochloride.
Salts Diclofenac sodium paracetamol and promethezine hydrochloride are schedule 'H' drug and do not falls under NDPS Act and salt Dextropropoxyphene hydrochloride is falls at Sr. No. 87 of notification No. 826-E dated 14.11.85 of NDPS Act as per definitioni do not falls under provisions of NDPS Act.
The firm M/s Ranjan Medical Hall opp. Guru Ravidas Public School, Kala Sanghian Road, Jalandhar bears valid drug sale Licences No. 6240-NB and 6240- B which was granted on 13.6.96 and renewed upto 31.12.06, and firm has applied for next renewal up to 31.12.2011 and Sh. Ashok Malhotra is the sole proprietor of the firm. But the petitioner did not produce any purchase bill and valid licence at the time of recovery of above said medicines. Hence he is liable to be prosecuted under Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and Rules 1945.
Thus, in view of the opinion of the committee, no offence under the Act is made out. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. No. 121 dated 31.08.2005 under Section 22 of the Act registered at Police Station Division No.5, Jalandhar (Annexure P-2) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
The Drug Inspector would be at liberty to initiate Crl. Misc. No. M-39302 of 2007 (O&M) -3 - proceedings against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 16, 2012 Gurpreet