Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarpartap Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 November, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No.210 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 19.11.2012.
Sarpartap Singh
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr. B.S. Baath, Advocate for
Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)
Sarpartap Singh-petitioner is owner of a chemist shop in the name and style M/s Paramveer Medicos, Samrala road Khanna, District Ludhiana.
On February 11th, 2011 he was arrested by the Police of Police Station City Khanna while carrying 500 bottles of Recodex syrup, 3500 tablets of Phentil, 5200 capsules of Parvon Spas, 400 Capsules of Parvon Spas, 200 Capsules of Dexogon, 3500 tablets of Lomotil and 1008 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon and was challened under Section 22 of the NDPS Act.
By order dated November 3rd, 2011 he was ordered to be charged under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and accordingly charge-sheeted. The medicines recovered were sent to the Government Analyst, Punjab. These were found containing Chlorpheniramine Meleate, Codeine Phosphate, Dextropropoxyphene Hydrochloride, Dicylomine Hydrochloride, Paracetamol, Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride, Actropine Sulphate and Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate.
At the outset, learned State counsel assisted by Ms. Parneet Kaur, Drug Inspector, Ludhiana-V has stated that the CRR No.210 of 2012. (2) drugs recovered from the possession of the petitioner do not fall within the ambit of NDPS Act because the petitioner was having a valid licence to run shop. Otherwise too, this Court in (i) Ashok Kumar vs. State of Punjab CRM M-9948 of 2010 decided on May 28th, 2010 (ii) Pawan Kuamr and another vs. state of Punjab CRR No.165 of 2009 decided on Janaury 28th, 2010 and (iii) Krishan Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab CRM No. 24461- M of 2011 decided on May 26th, 2011 has held that provisions of NDPS Act would not apply on the manufactured allopathic drugs, as is the case in hand.
In view of above, the petition is accepted. Order under challenge is set aside. The petitioner stands discharged. However, the prosecution is at liberty to prosecute the petitioner under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or any other law for the time being in force.
19.11.2012. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE