Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhbir Singh Alias Sukh vs State Of Punjab on 3 February, 2011

Crl. Misc. No.M-5947 of 2007                                        1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH.


                                          Crl. Misc. No.M-5947 of 2007
                                          Date of Decision: 03.02.2011



Sukhbir Singh alias Sukh                           ....Petitioner

            Versus

State of Punjab                                   ....Respondent


CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

Present:-   Mr. Puneet Singla, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab
            for the respondent-State.

                       *****
          1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
             allowed to see the judgment ?
          2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
          3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
             Digest ?
          **
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.333 dated 25.11.2006 for offences under Sections 21/61/85 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Sadar, District Amritsar.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a licensed Chemist and is running Chemist Shop under the name and style of M/s Sukh Medical Store and having a drug licence dated 09.05.2005 which is valid for five years duly issued by the State Drug Controlling Authority, Punjab, Chandigarh. The petitioner, as a Chemist, for the purpose of business, used to buy and sell various medicines from the wholesalers. The story of the prosecution is that on 25.11.2005, the police party apprehended the petitioner and recovered Spasmo Proxyvon (48 Crl. Misc. No.M-5947 of 2007 2 Capsules), Parmol Spas (65 Capsules), Proxyvon (22 Capsules) and Subarimol (35 Tablets). The police registered a case under the NDPS Act against the petitioner.

Reply by way of short affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar, District Drugs Inspector, Amritsar has already been placed on record. The opinion of the Drug Inspector is as under :-

" As per the records of this office, Shri Sukhbir Singh son of Sh. Harwinder Singh is the sole proprietor of firm M/s Sukh Medical Store, Khanna Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar. This firm is holding Licence No.20640/NB and 20640/B dated 09.05.2005 which are valid upto 08.05.2010. This firm can stock the medicines i.e. 48 Capsules Spasmo Proxyvon, 65 Capsules Loose Parmol Spas, 22 Capsules Loose Proxyvon and 35 Tablets Subrimol, mentioned in the Memo in question, in original packing against valid purchase Bills and can sell the same as per prescription of Doctor. "

Thus, it is evident from the above facts that the drugs contain salt Dextropropoxyphene, propoxyphene Napsylate. It is not disputed that the said drugs are specified in Schedule C and C(i). The said drugs are stated to be within the permissible limit as specified in the said Schedule. As per the report of the Drug Inspector, the petitioner had a licence to sell these drugs. Thus, no offence under the NDPS Act, 1985 is made out against the petitioner.

In case, it is only a case of not holding a valid licence, the offence as alleged in the FIR can be dealt with under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Some relevant portion of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 reads as under :-

"18. Prohibition of manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics.- From such date as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in Crl. Misc. No.M-5947 of 2007 3 the Official Gazette in this behalf, no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf-
                    (a) xx        xx         xx
                    (b) xx         xx        xx
(c) manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale,] or distribute any drug [or cosmetic], except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Chapter."

The licence is issued subject to the conditions as specified in Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Sub conditions (1), (2) and (3)(1) of Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 read as under:-

"(1) Any drug shall, if compounded ormade on the licensee's premises, be compounded or made by or under the direct and personal supervision of a registered Pharmacist.
(2) The supply, otherwise than by way of wholesale dealing of any drug supplied on the prescription of a Registered Medical Practitioner shall be effected only by or under the personal supervision of a registered pharmacist.
(3)(1)The supply of any drug other than those specified in Schedule X on a prescription of a registered medical practitioner shall be recorded at the time of supply in a prescription register specially maintained for the purpose and the serial number of entry in this regard shall be entered on the prescription. The following particulars shall be entered in the register-
           a)      serial number of the entry,
           b)      the date of supply,
           c)      the name and address of the prescriber,
           d)      the name and address of the patient, or the name
and address of the owner of the animal if the drug supplied is for veterinary use"
Crl. Misc. No.M-5947 of 2007 4

Rule 66 provides for cancellation and suspension of licenses in case of violation of any of the terms and conditions which reads as under:-

66. Cancellation and suspension of licences:
1) The licensing authority may, after giving the licensee an opportunity to show cause why such an order should not be passed by an order in writing stating the reasons therefor, cancel a licence issued under this part or suspend it for such period as he thinks fit, either wholly or in respect of some of the substances to which it relates, if in his opinion, the licensee has failed to comply with any of the conditions of the licence or with any provisions of the Act or Rules thereunder:-
Thus, the prosecution allegation disclose commission of an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and no offence under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is made out against the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner has a valid licence. Even the offence under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act is not made out in the facts of the present case.
Accordingly, the present petition is accepted and the proceedings launched against the petitioner under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by way of registration of FIR are quashed.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) 03.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet