Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwinder Singh Alias Shamma vs The State Of Punjab on 26 August, 2013
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.M.No.M-27672 of 2013(O&M) -1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-27672 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision: August 26, 2013
Kulwinder Singh alias Shamma
.....Petitioner
v.
The State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.A.K.Khunger, Advocate
for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.77, dated 21.6.2012, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for sort the `Act') at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
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, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for bail was dismissed.
This is second application for bail filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused. His earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court vide a detailed order dated 21.11.2012 passed in Crl.M.No.M-36639 of 2012.
Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that he kept in his possession six vials of Recodex and four vials of Parvo Cof besides 40 tablets of Carisol and as per report Chemical Examiner, the samples of Recodex and Parvo Cof on analysis found containing codeine phosphate. As per Notification bearing No.S.O.2941(E) dated 18.11.2009, entire quantity is to be seen to determine as to whether recovered material is commercial or non-commercial. It has been mentioned by learned Judge, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib, that total recovered quantity comes within Meenu the definition of commercial quantity.
2013.08.27 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarhCrl.M.No.M-27672 of 2013(O&M) -2--
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that it is a debatable point as to whether the recovery allegedly effected from petitioner-accused would fall under the Act or under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and that the said matter is also pending before Division Bench of this Court.
However, so far as the said fact is concerned, it is relevant to reproduce Section 80 of the Act, which reads as under:-
"80.Application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 not barred.- The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) or the rules made thereunder."
Hence, perusal of aforementioned provision shows that offence under the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Hence, in view of the same, if an accused is found to have committed an offence under the Act, merely on the ground that the same also amounts to violation of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, it cannot be said that he is entitled for bail under the Act.
Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Kulwinder Singh alias Shamma for grant of bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
26.8.2013 (Ram Chand Gupta)
meenu Judge
Meenu
2013.08.27 12:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh