Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi vs State Of Punjab on 6 September, 2012
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Criminal Misc. No. M-13140 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-13140 of 2012
Date of order : September 06, 2012
Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi
.... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. J.S.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. OP Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Accused Inderjeet Singh alias Laddi has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 297 dated 13.9.2011, under section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Payal, Distt. Ludhiana.
Reply affidavit filed today in Court by State counsel pursuant to order of the preceding date is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Copy given to the opposite counsel.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Criminal Misc. No. M-13140 of 2012 -2- According to the prosecution version, 30 Vial of Rexcof of 100 ml. Each, 1500 tablets of Momotel, 500 tablets of Thenotil and 150 capsules of Parwanspas were recovered from the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner relying on two judgments of this Court i.e. Baljit Singh versus State of Punjab, 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 4 (P&H) and Manjit Singh versus State of Punjab, 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 907 (P&H) contended that substances allegedly recovered from the petitioner being manufactured drugs do not come within the purview of NDPS Act and petitioner can at best be prosecuted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Counsel for the petitioner has also cited unreported order dated 17.9.2012 passed in Criminal Misc. No. M-12566 of 2012, titled Hari Singh versus State of Punjab and contended that in that case bail was granted in case of recovery of manufactured drugs when the accused had remained in custody for eight months whereas in the instant case, the petitioner-accused has already remained in custody for almost one year.
On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that substances recovered from the petitioner are covered under the NDPS Act in view of report Annexure R/1 of Forensic Science Laboratory.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions.
Question whether such substances/drugs are covered under the NDPS Act or nor or can be dealt with only under the Drugs and Cosmetics Criminal Misc. No. M-13140 of 2012 -3- Act, 1940 is arising frequently in many cases. The consequence would be completely different if the substances are held to be within the purview of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 instead of NDPS Act. The matter, therefore, requires authoritative settlement by Larger Bench. The papers be, therefore, laid before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
Since the petitioner has been in custody for almost one year and keeping in view the precedent in the case of Hari Singh (supra), the petitioner-accused is ordered to be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of learned trial court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.
( L.N. Mittal )
September 06, 2012 Judge
'dalbir'