Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh Alias Soni vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2013
Crl. Misc. No.M-4913 of 2012(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M- 4913 of 2012
Date of decision : 04.03.2013
Harjinder Singh alias Soni ..... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
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?
Present: Mr.K.V. Singh, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG Punjab
for the State.
--
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK , J Harjinder Singh alias Soni, the petitioner has sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 08 dated 08.01.2012 at Police Station Doraha, District Ludhiana, for an offence punishable under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act).
Crl. Misc. No.M-4913 of 2012(O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the report of the Review Committee to which the case was referred for opinion, the tablets Phenotil contained Diphenoxylate HCL and Atropine Sulphate and this combination was covered by entry no. 58 of Notification No. SO 826 (E) dated 14.11.1985. According to him, the other medicine recovered is Parvon Spas capsules, which was containing Dextropropoxyphene HCL, Dicylomine HCL and Paracetamol. According to him, as per the report of the Review Committee Dextropropoxyphene HCL was covered by entry at Sr. No. 87 of the Notification No. SO 826(E) dated 14.11.1985 and other constituents are not covered by the Act. He has further submitted that in these circumstances, the material recovered from the possession of the petitioner is exempted from the definition of manufactured drug. He has further submitted that the only violation in this case could be of the petitioner not possessing a valid licence to keep these medicines. According to him, these drugs are falling under schedule G and H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and, therefore, possession of the same would not be an offence under the Act.
Crl. Misc. No.M-4913 of 2012(O&M) 3 Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner did not possess a licence to keep the medicines in his possession. According to him, these medicines are being used as intoxicants and the petitioner was not keeping those medicines for therapeutic use.
The report of the Review Committee clearly shows that the salts, which are psychotropic substances are covered by Notification No. SO 826(E) dated 14.11.1985 and other salts are nowhere covered by the Act. The recovered material is allopathic medicines which are used for medicinal purposes. In view of the ratio of a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 974 the drugs would not fall within the purview of the Act.
In this view of the matter and without commenting on the merits of the case, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail. The petition is ,consequently ,allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.
March 04, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE