Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 July, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M-35475 of 2007 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-35475 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.7.2012.
Gurmit Singh ........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. M.K.Dogra, Advocate and
Mr. Vikas Nantial, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.
.....
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 214 dated 17.7.2005 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) registered at Police Station Jandiala, District Majitha (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Vide order dated 17.9.2008, the matter was referred to the committee constituted by the State Government to see whether the case of the petitioner was covered under the Act or not.
The committee vide its report has opined as under:-
"In this case, the committee is of the opinion that as per FSL Report parcel 1 contain Buprenorphine HCL 0.3 mg/ml which is a Psychotropic substance, as per rule 66 of NDPS Rules a valid drugs licensed firm can keep formulations containing Psychotropic substance for sale with proper record. Parcel no. 2,3 and 4 found to contain Dextropropoxyphone HCL 33, 65 and 65/mg/cap. Crl. Misc. No. M-35475 of 2007 (O&M) -2- respectively listed at Sr. No. 87 if a unit dosage form of Dextropropoxy-phene contains not more than 135 mg then it does not fall under NDPS Act, as per Govt. of India notification no. 826 (E) dated 14.11.85. Paracetamol is neither psychotropic nor Narcotic drug.
In this case, the recovery of that drugs was made from Gurmeet Singh at police naka. Gurmeet Singh was not partner/proprietor of any licensed chemist shop. At the time of recovery accused did not produce any Bills/record of the drugs kept by him. Gurmeet Singh contravenes section 22 of NDPS Act and thus falls under NDPS Act."
In view of the opinion of the committee, no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 16, 2012 Gurpreet