Allahabad High Court
Prabhat Dubey vs Union Of India Thru. Cbn, Lucknow on 18 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:35573
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 248 of 2026
Prabhat Dubey
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
Union Of India Thru. Cbn, Lucknow
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Prathama Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh, Pal Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
S M Singh Royekwar
Reserved on 25.02.2026 Delivered on 18.05.2026 Court No. - 27
HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Sri S,M. Singh Royekwar,learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Special Counsel appearing for Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow and perused the record.
2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.02.2026 passed by learned additional District and Sessions Judge Court No.11/Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Lucknow, in Session case No. 1819 of 2025, Union of India through CBN versus Prabhat Dubey and others. arising out of Crime No. 03 of 2025 under section 8, 22, 29 NDPS Act, 1985 and Rule 65A, 66, 67 N.D.P.S. Rules, 1985, Police Station CBN, Lucknow by which the learned Court below rejected the application of the applicant/ revisionist filed under section 250 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (corresponding section 220 Cr.P.C.) for discharge from charges.
3. The factual matrix of the case , in brief, are relevant for the purpose of present revision that a secret information was received on 12.05.2025 at 15:00 hrs. by Shri Ravi Ranjan, posted as Inspector in the office of Deputy Narcotics Commissioner, Lucknow, which was reduced into writing as per section 42(1) of the Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985, (herein after referred to as "Act"). Thereafter, in compliance of the section 42(2) of Act, the information was forwarded to immediate superior officer i.e., Superintendent Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow on the same day. The secret information was in respect of trafficking of contraband (Ten Thousand ampoules of Pentazocine Injection) by the co-accused namely Mohd. Ali. In pursuant to the said secret information, preventive team led by Shri Avinash Bhadu, Sub-Inspector and other officials was constituted. The preventive team reached the spot at 18:45 hrs. on 12.05.2025 and waited for the person with regards to whom the information was received. The presence of two local passersby as witnesses was also secured as independent witnesses, namely , Mr. Anurah Narayan Shukla and Sri Raman Bajpai. At around 19:15 hrs., the team intercepted one suspect person who on being asked disclosed his name to be the Ali Akhtar Rizvi. At the time he was asked to disclose his identity, the suspect was picking up the carton kept on the roadside just beside the Parvati Complex. The said co-accused was introduced to the public witnesses and was informed the purpose of interception pursuant to secret information.Thereafter the mandatory compliance of section 50 of the Act was carried out by the preventive team before conducting the search. The suspect was informed that he had a legal right to be searched before the Magistrate or Gazzetted officer. The compliance was made in writing also on which document the consent was put in by the co-accused. The co-accused consented to be searched by the member of the preventive team namely Sri Avinash Bhadu .
4. On being interrogated, the said co accused informed that the carton contained Pentazocine Injections. There were fifteen such cartons of Pentazocine Injection. Upon further inquiry, the co-Aaccused, namely Ali Akhtar Rizvi, stated that the consignment belonged to Prabhat Dubey, the revisionist . When the team asked about Prabhat Dubey, Ali Akhtar Rizvi informed them that he works for a firm named M/s Pragati Enterprises, and that Prabhat Dubey is the owner of the firm. The said consignment is to be sent to M/s Minemed, Transport Nagar, Lucknow.
5. The preventive team called said Prabhat Dubey from the office of M/s Pragati Enterprises which office was situated in front of Pragati Complex. When the team asked about the said consignment, the applicant informed them that the said consignment belonged to M/s Shree Agency, Aminabad and it was to be sent to M/s Minemed, Transport Nagar, Lucknow. Neither the applicant nor the said Ali Akhtar could present any valid authorization letter with regard to the said consignments before the preventive team.
6. Since the place where the accused persons were intercepted was a busy and crowded public place, keeping in view the safety and security of the recovered contraband and the accused, it was decided with the consent of the accused persons and the witnesses that further proceedings be done at the office of the Deputy Narcotics Commissioner, Lucknow. A detention memo of the two suspects Prabhat Dubey and Ali Akhtar Rizvi was prepared on the spot to the effect which was duly signed by the seizing officer namely Mr. Avinash Bhadu, accused persons and two independent witnesses.
7. After leaving the place where the suspects were detained at 20:25 hrs, they reached the office of the Deputy Narcotics Commissioner, Lucknow at 21:15 hrs. Thereafter the recovered fifteen cartons were opened in the presence of the independent witnesses and it was found that all the cartons contained pentazocine injections. The seizing officer got all the said fifteen cartons containing contraband kept in a room in the office and sealed the room. The preventive team detained both the accused persons and gave them time for presenting all the bills regarding sale and purchase of the alleged contraband.
8. On 13.05.2025 at 17:00 hrs. they could not produce any document regarding the sale and purchase of the Pentazocine Injection before the preventive team. After that all fifteen cartons were taken out from the sealed room .Each cartons contained twenty (20) boxes and each boxes had five (5) pentazocine injections with ten (10) strips of the ampoules. The recovered contraband was weighed by the team which came out to be 45 kilogram and it was duly sealed. The recovery of the contraband was made from the co-accused namely Ali Akhtar Rizvi and the revisionist in the presence of two independent witnesses. The recovery proceedings were video graphed also. The is marked as serial number Serial No. 27 in the scheduled Act .The statements of both the accused and the revisionist were recorded in which they confessed their guilt. A true copy of the their statements was annexed with the complaint.
9. The recovered contraband was deposited in the godown on 13.05.2025 immediately after seizure at 18:15 hrs. as per rule 5(2) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance (Seizure, storage , sampling and disposal0 Rules, 2022. Both the the co-accused persons were arrested on 13.05.2025 for committing offences under sections 8/22/29 of NDPS Act and their family members were duly informed about their arrest in writing on 14.05.2025.
10. On 14.05.2025, the application was moved by the seizing officer before the Additional District Judge, Special Judge NDPS, Lucknow for the permission to draw two representative samples from each cartons of the recovered contraband for sending one sample from each cartons for the purpose of Chemical examination. The permission was duly granted by the learned Trial Court on the same day. The samples were sent to Government Opium and Alkaloids Works (GOAW), Ghazipur (U.P.) for chemical examination on 15.05.2025. On chemical examination, test report for recovered contraband confirmed the same to be pentazocine. The compliance of Section 57 of the Act was carried out by forwarding the intimation of the arrest and seizure to the Superintendent, CBN vide letter dated 14.05.2025.
11. During investigation, the investigation officer sent the letter to the manufacturer of the seized contraband namely M/s. Brooks Laboratories Limited, Village- Kisanpura. Nalagarh Road, District Baddi, Himachal Pradesh174101, for providing the details of Pentazocine 30mg/ml regarding batch no. L-2503063 which has been manufactured/marketed by the firm.
12. In response, M/s. Brooks Laboratories Limited, provided the details Batch Manufacturing Report (BMR) of the seized contraband (pentazocine injections) vide letter dated 11.06.2025 and other necessary details. As per the batch manufacturing report, for the batch size of 103000 ampules of pentazocine injections, total salt used was 5.476 Kgs. Accordingly, it is clear that for the seized quantity of 15,000 ampoules, salt used was 797 grams. which is way beyond the minimum commercial quantity (500 grams). During investigation, this fact also emerged that the applicant's wife namely Pragati Dubey is the proprietor of the M/s Shree Agencies with the other partner namely Shivani Srivastava. The registered address of the firm is Shop No. LGF-04 110/331 J Plaza Naya Gaon East Ward Shivaji Marg, Sadar, District Lucknow, 226018. The investigation officer issued the summons against the M/s Minemed Pharmaceutical Ltd. the proprietor of the said firm is Nidhi Singh and her husband namely Raghvendra Singh. The investigation against them was kept pending.
13. The revisionist is drug licensee of the Firm M/s Pragati Enterprises and not M/s Shri Agency to which the recovered contraband belonged. The firm namely M/s Shree Agency is registered in the name of Pragati Dubey who is wife of the revisionist with the partner namely Shivani Shrivastsva. The revisionist has been found dealing with the recovered contraband which admittedly does not belong to his licensee Firm. No documents relating to the recovered contraband could be produced by the revisionist. He has no valid bills or any other documents of his Firm namely M/s Pragati Enterprises regarding the recovered pentazocine injections.
14. The co-accused namely Ali Akhtar Rizvi is working in the applicant firm namely M/s Pragati Enterprises and the alleged contraband has been purchased by the applicant to deliver the same to M/s Minemed Pharmaceuticals without the valid bills regarding sale and purchase of the pentazocine injections. Accordingly, the co-accused namely Ali Akhtar Rizvi is also involved in the trafficking of the psychotropic substance. The revisionist confessed his guilt while his statement was recorded under Section 67 of the Act.
15. After completing the investigation, the investigating officer, Central Bureau of Narcotics, filed a complaint before the court with the prayer to prosecute the revisionist and co-accused. The revisionist moved an application for discharge on grounds mentioned therein that no prima facie case for said offences is made out against him. The said application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned trial court vide the order dated 16-2-2026 after hearing the submissions of both sides with the observation that Prabhat Dubey has stated in his statement under Section 67 of the Act that he deals in the wholesale business of medicine. On 12-5-2025 at 18 hours, Ali Akhtar Rizvi had telephoned him that 15 cartons of pentazocine injections IP 30 mg/ml were being transported from the M/s. S.S. Biotech, Transport Nagar, Lucknow by E-riksha to Kuthari Bandu Marg, Rajajipuram, Lucknow. He also told Ali Akhtar Rizvi that these medicines are booked in the name of M/s. Shree Agency Aminabad, Lucknow and it has to be delivered to M/s Minemed Pharmaceutical Ltd., Transport Nagar, Lucknow He admitted that he was not having any license for the purchase, sale, and transportation of psychotropic substances.
16. Smt. Nidhi Singh, Director of M/s Minemed Pharmaceutical Ltd., Transport Nagar, Lucknow in her statement dated 03.06.2025 under Section 67 of the Act, she has stated that the statement of Prabhat Dubey to the effect that 5000 pentazocine injections were sold to M/s Minemed Pharmaceutical Limited is absolutely false. An e-mail was sent by her firm to M/s. Shree Agency Aminabad, Lucknow on 9-5-2025 for the purchase of 5000 ampoules of pentazocine Injections 30mg strength, and on 12-5-2025, 1000 ampoules of said injection her husband and Prabhat Dubey are old acquaintances .For that purpose, her firm paid Rs 5000/- on 11-5-2025 to M/s Shree Agency, but her firm did not obtain the delivery of the said medicine. Later on, 13.05.2025, she issued an e-mail to M/s Shree Agency to cancel the order of supply of said injections and return of money deposited to the account of her firm.The investigating officer has found the involvement of revisionist in sale, purchase, transport, and diversion of said injection in an illegal manner and for that purpose, the investigating officer has filed a complaint against him for such charges. The revisionist Prabhat Dubey was arrested on 14.05.2025 and sent to jail custody.
17. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case. The entire proceeding taken by the prosecution against the revisionists is mala fide and prompted by ulterior motives. The prosecution has failed to establish the case of seizure, and there is variation regarding the place of seizure in a margin of plant in paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof. the said injections were sold by S/S Biotech, Transport Nagar Lucknow to M/s Shree Agency on 12.05.2025.
18. He submitted that in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2021 State of Delhi Vs. Tauheed Khan @ Sahit @ Baba , 2025 SCC Online Del 1970 the High Court Delhi in para 107 held that a Recovery from a place where the possession of accused not proved cannot be attributed to be a recovery from him. Moreover, no independent public witnesses were associated at the time of recovery corroborate the authenticity of recovery.
19. He next submitted that in the case of Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SC 417 emphasizes that procedural violations in NDPS cases shifts burden back to the prosecution, potentially warranting acquittal.
20. The prosecution has shown the proceedings of seizure, two dates and time on carrying out search and seizure no.1 on 12-5-2025 at 17 hours in paragraph 2 of the complaint, and other dates 13-5-2000 as 17:55 hours at first page . It is wrong to say that the revisionist did not have a valid license for the sale and purchase of recovered injections. His company had produced bills, invoices, and payment receipts for the referred injection. However, their cognizance was not taken by the prosecution at the time of seizure, and those documents were filed along with the discharge application. The revisionist was denied by the complaint from 12-5-2025, and for that reason, he could not get his independent statement recorded. He was having valid wholesale license for medicine, but the seizure officers refused to take it on record. The entire process of the seizure and receipt undertaken by the prosecution is tainted and contrary to law.
21. The confessional statement of the accused in the NDPS case cannot be taken into consideration by the court in view of the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court, in the case of Toofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2020, SC 5592. The E-Rickshaw porter bill, in which the place of departure and the designation of the sent intimation were mentioned, was deliberately got disappeared by the prosecution. The revisionist had a valid license, on the basis of which the sale and purchase of the seized injections were being carried out. The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against the revisionist, putting him on trial for the said charges.
22. This fact is not denied that pentazocine injections is a psychotropic substance under NDPS Act . It is described as Serial No. 157 of the Notification, specifying the small quantity and commercial quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotic substances appended to the Act. This notification was issued in terms of the N.D.P.S. Amendment Act 2001, vide S.O. number 1055 E dated 9/10/2021; its small quantity is 20 grams and commercial quantity is 500 grams. Narcotic drug and substance ( seizure, storage, sampling and disposal) Rule 2022, which was notified on 23/12/2022. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of State of Nct of Delhi Vs. Tauhid Khan and others, reported in 2025 SCC online Dell 9170. In that case, a police received secret information that Tauhid Khan would be coming on a motorcycle via Ghazipur to deliver heroin. A raid was conducted, but the accused did not appear. On the next day, similar information was received again a raiding party was constituted,and at about 12:30 p.m., accused Tauhid Khan was intercepted at Ghazipur. Upon seeing the police, he attempted to flee but was apprehended. A search of the bag he was carrying, led to the recovery of two packets, each containing 1 kg of a substance which tested positive for heroin. During investigation, the accused, Tauhid Khan, disclosed that he could get another 1 kg of heroin recovered from a house in Purda Colony which was rented by the accused as Bob-e-Khan. Subsequently, the raiding team went to the house and recovered 1 kg of heroin from an iron box at the instance of Tuheed Khan, though none of the neighbors agreed to join the proceedings. Charges were framed against all the accused for criminal conspiracy under section 29 of the act, and separate charges under section 21 C NDPS Act were framed against three accused persons. Learned trial court, after appreciation of evidence, acquitted the appellants. the State of NCT, New Delhi, preferred an appeal against the acquittal before the Delhi High Court, which carried out re-appraisal of evidence and gave a finding that the prosecution had failed to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. The court observed that the NDPS Act contains stringent provisions that create statutory presumptions against the accused, shifting the burden of proof under certain circumstances. These are primarily found in section 34 and 35 of the Act. The High Court has repeatedly held that these presumptions do not absolve the prosecution of its primary and initial duty to first establish the foundational facts of the case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is only upon satisfactorily proving possession that the presumption kicks in, and this issue has been considered by the apex court in the case of Madanlal and another versus State of H.P. [2003] 7 SCC 465. Thus, the case cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist relates to the appeal and was put before the High Court.
23. In State of Delhi Vs. Gyan Devi and others, (2000) 8 SCC 239 cited by learned counsel for the respondents, Hon'ble the Supreme Court dealt with High Court's power to quash the charge. It was a case under Section 304/34 IPC wherein it is held that it is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At this stage of charge the court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons Moreover, once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases.
24. A leading case Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another ( 2112) 9 SCC 460 , the Apex Court deal with the issue of frame of charge or discharge in detail in para-17 which reproduced as under:-
" 17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these provisions, the court is required to consider the "record of the case" and documents submitted therewith and, b after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the section exists, then the court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie case. There is a fine distinction between the language of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section 227 is the expression of a definite opinion and judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is an approach which is impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code."
25. In State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2019)2 SCC 466, the State appeal preferred against the suspension of sentence of the accused allowed by High Court observing that manufactured drugs, be it containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, if manufactured by a manufacturer, must be tried, if violation is there, under Drugs and Cosmetics Act and not under NDPS Act held this view is erroneous and set aside the order of suspension of sentence . In that case accused- respondent were found in bulk possession of manufactured drugs without any valid authorization.
26. Hon'ble Apex Court did not find favour with the opinion of High Court that it is very far-fetched to presume that, any person who is apprehended with bulk quantity of manufactured drug, without having a licence for the same, has committed an offence which is liable to be prosecuted under the NDPS Act.
27. The Apex Court has held that the NDPS Act is a special law enacted by Parliament with an object to control and regulate the operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. After analysing the objectives of both the Acts, we can safely conclude that while the Drugs and Cosmetics Act deals with drugs which are intended to be used for therapeutic or medicinal usage, on the other hand, the NDPS Act intends to curb and penalise the usage of drugs which are used for intoxication or for getting a stimulant effect. Section 8 of the Act prohibts the certain operations which is reproduced as under:-
"8. Prohibition of certain operations.No person shall-
(a) cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant; or
(b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or
(c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation:
Provided that, and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the prohibition against the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of ganja or the production, possession, use, consumption. purchase, sale, transport, warehousing, import inter-State and export inter-State of ganja for any purpose other than medical and scientific purpose shall take effect only from the date which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf."
28. In the instant case, on the question of unauthorized transportation of psychotropic substance, i.e. Pentazocine injections, the revisionist was found dealing with the recovered contraband which admittedly did not belong to his license firm. No documents related to the recovered contraband could be produced by the revisionist as per the prosecution when he was called to produce. He is a drug licensee of the firm, M/s Pragati Enterprises and not M/s Shree Agency, to which the recovered contraband belonged. It cannot be countenanced that as the revisionist is the husband of a member of the M/s Shree Agency to which the recovered contraband belongs he is exempted from criminal liability of unauthorized handling and transportation of the said injections. It is alleged that the revisionist did not have valid bills or any other documents of his firm, M/S Pragati Enterprises regarding the recovered Pentazocine injection.Co-accused Ali Akhtar Rizvi, from whose possession the contraband was recovered, is working in the firm of the revisionist The alleged contraband had been purchased by the revisionist to deliver the same to M/s. Minemed, Pharmaceutical Limited without valid bills regarding the sale and purchase of said injection. It is alleged that co-accused, Ali Akhtar Rizvi is also involved in the illicit transportation of psychotropic substances.
29. The information received by C.B.N. officials was reduced to writing in compliance with section 42 of the Act. The search and seizure was affected in the presence of two public witnesses. On further inquiry, co-accused further stated that the consignment belongs to the revisionist and the consignment was to be sent to M/s. Minemed Pharmaceutical Limited Transport Nagar Lucknow. It belonged to M/s Shree Agency Aminabad, Lucknow. The mere fact that the proceedings of search and seizure were carried out after the interception of the contraband in the office of the Deputy Narcotic Commissioner in view the security of contraband and the accused is per se not illegal. Sampling from the bulk of contraband was taken on 14/05/2025 before learned Special Judge, NDPS Act after receiving his permission to draw representative samples from each carton of the recovered contraband. In the test report of the sample issued to G.O.A.W., Gazipur, the samples were confirmed to be Pentazocine injection.
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion and on perusal of material and record in the light of aforesaid judicial precedent, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the court below whereby the discharge application filed by the revisionist has been dismissed on the facts of the case and the evidence collected during the inquiry and investigation, the charges against the revisionist cannot be said to be groundless.
The criminal revision is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed as such.
(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) May 18, 2026 dk/