Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Nath vs State Of Punjab on 16 July, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M-15877 of 2010 (O&M) -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-15877 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.7.2012.
Ram Nath ........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, 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. 3 dated 7.1.2010 under Section 21, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) registered at Police Station City South, Moga and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
The matter was considered by 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 review committee have gone through the concerned record of this case. The report no. 19/2010 Chem./FSL/Pb dated 11.2.2010 reveals the presence Crl. Misc. No. M-15877 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - of the drugs salts Diphenoxylate, Hydrochloride, Dicyclomine Hydrochloride Dextropropoxyphene Hydrochloride Paracetamol Atropine sulphate. Out of these Paracetamol, Atropine Sulphate, Diclyclomine Hydrochloride are not covered in the NDPS Act, 1985. The details of other two drugs are as follows:-
(i) Diphenoxylate is present at serial no. 58 of the list of Notification 826(E) dated 14.11.1985.
(ii) Dextropropoxyphene is present at S. No. 87 of the list of notification 826(E) dated 14.11.1985. The firm M/s Tushant Pharma, Fauzi Market Moga bears valid drugs sale wholesale licenses baring DL No. 20-B-6335/OW-FDK w/s and 21-B-
6135/W-FDK w/s granted on 29.5.1989 valid upto 31.12.2012 and Sh. Ram Nath S/o Sh. Khushal Chand is the partner of the firm. The Competent person of the firm as per record file is Manohar Lal Sethi.
But petitioner did not produce any licence or bill at the time of recovery of above said medicines. Hence he is liable to be prosecuted under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940 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. 3 dated 7.1.2010 under Section 21, 22 of the Act registered at Police Station City South, Moga and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
The Drug Inspector would be at liberty to initiate Crl. Misc. No. M-15877 of 2010 (O&M) -3 - proceedings against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 16, 2012 Gurpreet