Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh Alias Sonu vs State Of Punjab on 10 January, 2013
Crl. Misc. No.M-15982 of 2012(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M- 15982 of 2012
Date of decision : 10.01.2013
Sukhwinder Singh alias Sonu ..... 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. Amaninder Preet, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shivali, AAG, Punjab
for the State.
--
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK , J Sukhwinder Singh alias Sonu, the petitioner has sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.162 dated 24.09.2011 at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar, District Amritsar, for an offence punishable under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the police has arrested the petitioner for keeping in his possession 1500 capsules of Pyvon Spas. According to him, the Forensic Science Laboratory found Dextropropoxyphene HCL Crl. Misc. No.M-15982 of 2012(O&M) 2 and Dicyclomine HCL as ingredients of the same besides Paracetamol. According to him, the Review Committee to which the matter was referred has found that the material does not attract the provisions of the Act. According to him, for this reason, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application. According to him, the petitioner did not have a valid licence for keeping in his possession a huge number of Pyvon Spas capsules.
This court constituted a Review Committee to examine cases of this nature and to make recommendation if they fall within the purview of the Act or Drugs & Cosmetics Act,1940. The matter in hand was referred to the said Committee constituted by Drugs Inspector, District Amritsar, Superintendent of Police Crime, Zonal Amritsar, Superintendent of Police,Crime/ (HQ)/ Punjab Chandigarh and Dy. Inspector General of Police, Crime, Punjab Chandigarh. The said Committee has made the following recommendation in its report:-
" In this case, the committee is of the opinion that as per test report no.8650 dated 28.12.2011 of the drug seized vide recovery memo contains Dextropropoxyphene HCL as one of the ingredient which is covered at Sr. No.87 of Notification No. 826(E) dated 14.11.1985 of Crl. Misc. No.M-15982 of 2012(O&M) 3 NDPS Act (according to which unit drug formulations used for oral purposes containing less than 135 mg of Dextropropoxy-phene HCL used for medicinal purposes are exempted from the definition of manufactured drug and hence the NDPS Act,1985) and does fall under the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985. Further Paracetamol and Dicyclomine HCL also does not fall under the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985."
It has been mentioned in this report that Dextropropoxyphene HCL is a substance covered at Sr. No.87 of Notification No.826(E) dated 14.11.1985 and the other material found as Dicyclomine HCL and Paracetamol are also not covered by the Act. The question as to whether the prosecution against the petitioner is competent or not would have to be decided by the trial court after taking evidence. At least for the present purpose, it can be said that the petitioner, who is in custody for the last more than one year and three months, is entitled to bail. Hence, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.
January 10, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE