Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh Alias Raju vs State Of Punjab on 3 May, 2013
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.M.No.M-13876 of 2013(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-13876 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision: May 3, 2013
Surinder Singh alias Raju
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Binderjit Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short `the Act') is for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.57, dated 26.5.2012, under Sections 22/21 of the Act, registered at Police Station Kotkapura Sadar.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Faridkot, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for bail was dismissed.
This is third application for bail filed by petitioner-accused. His first bail application was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.10.2012 passed in Crl.M.No.M-25828 of 2012. Second application was also got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.12.2012 passed in Crl.M.No.M-38701 of 2012.
Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that he was apprehended by the police near bridge Suaa while he was carrying a plastic bag in his right hand and from search of such plastic bag, 1100 tablets on which microlit narcotic was mentioned was recovered. On analysis it was found that the same was containing Diphenoxylate hydrochloride. As per Entry No.58 of Notifications No.S.O.826(E) dated 14.11.1985, and S.O.40 Crl.M.No.M-13876 of 2013(O&M) -2- (E) dated 29.1.1993 issued by Central Government under Section 2(xi) of the Act, the same comes under the definition of manufactured drug. Further as per notification No.527(E) dated 16.7.1996 issued by Central Government, as per entry No.44, more than 50 grams is commercial quantity. As per latest Notification No.S.O.2941(E) dated 18.11.2009, entire mixture is to be seen to determine as to whether recovery is commercial or non-commercial.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that as per version in the FIR, the tablets were in 11 separate packets and from two of them samples were taken and hence it is contended that sample was not taken from each packet. However, in my view, there was no need of taking sample from each packet in this case as the packets contain same kind of tablets on which Microlit was written. Hence, it cannot be said that sample was not a representative sample of the entire recovery. Total recovery is 1100 tablets of Microlit and the weight of each tablet, as per report FSL, 80 mg and hence the total weight comes to 88000 mgs, i.e. 88 grams, which is commercial in nature.
Hence, in view of the bar created under Section 37 of the Act, petitioner is not entitled for bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Surinder Singh alias Raju for grant of bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial by giving short adjournments.
3.5.2013 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge