Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: codeine syrup in Mohd Ahsan vs Customs on 16 September, 2022Matching Fragments
xxx"
11. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present case is covered under the exception provided for in the aforesaid Entry 35. It was further submitted that the alleged recovery of 110 bottles of cough syrup, measuring 100 ml each contained 0.17% of Codeine Phosphate and therefore it was contended that since Codeine was not more than 100 milligrams in each bottle, the same would not be a „manufactured drug‟ under the NDPS Act. In other words, the cough syrup containing Codeine is used for "therapeutic practice" and therefore is not a narcotic drug under the NDPS Act.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner had primarily relied upon judgment/order passed by learned Single Judge in Iqbal Singh (supra). Reliance was further placed on a judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) 212/2016, titled Pfizer Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. dated 01.12.2016, whereby a notification issued by the Central Government dated 10.03.2016 which considered cough syrup containing Codeine, as "likely to involve risk to human beings" was quashed. Reliance was also placed on an order passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Binod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Bhagat vs. The State of Bihar, (2018) 14 SCC 199 dated 10.08.2017, wherein it was held as under:-
21. Before we proceed to answer the questions referred to this bench, we feel that the decision of the learned Single Judge of this court in Iqbal Singh (supra) needs to be considered. In Iqbal Singh (supra), learned Single Judge was concerned with the bail application filed by the petitioner therein, in a complaint case filed by the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) under Section 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act. The recovery in the said case was alleged to be 57 bottles of „Onerex‟ cough syrup. The said cough syrup, as in the present case, also contained Codeine Phosphate. The learned Single Judge after examining the provisions of the NDPS Act as well as The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, was of the prima facie view that the alleged recovery from the petitioner was of a cough syrup (having codeine as one of its ingredients) which is not a narcotic drug covered under the NDPS Act. The learned Single Judge in Para 16 observed:
"10. It is not in dispute that each 100 ml bottle of Phensedyl cough syrup contained 183.15 to 189.85 mg of codeine phosphate and the each 100 ml bottle of Recodex cough syrup contained 182.73 mg of codeine phosphate. When the appellants were not in a position to explain as to whom the supply was meant either for distribution or for any licensed dealer dealing with pharmaceutical products and in the absence of any other valid explanation for effecting the transportation of such a huge quantity of the cough syrup which contained the narcotic substance of codeine phosphate beyond the prescribed limit, the application for grant of bail cannot be considered based on the above submissions made on behalf of the appellants.