Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Rexcof is a drug of Cipla Limited, Mumbai. It has also clarified to all its Super Distributors vide (Annexure P-11) that Rexcof syrup (Codeine Phosphate 10mg+CPM 4mg/5ml) is exempted from the provisions of NDPS Act and Rules there under. In this regard reference has been given to the government notification No.SO-826(E), dated 14.11.1985.

11. It would also be important to note that a committee was constituted by the State Government to see whether such like cases are covered under the provisions of NDPS Act or under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Jagjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner almost covers the instant case. In the said case, the drug containing Codeine-Phosphate and chlorpheniram-ine Maleate was recovered. The case was referred to the Committee for its report and the Committee vide its report gave its opinion which reads as under:-

92. Taking a cue from the above extracted portion of the judgment in context of the present case, it is observed that the drug/substance at issue is not included under Schedule I appended to the N.D.P.S. Rules and, therefore, provisions of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S.Act would have no application. When the above noted observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are considered in context of Phensedyl Syrup containing codeine, opinion of this Court is re- enforced because extent of codeine used in Phensedyl Syrup is well within the prescribed limit, prescribed under Notification dated 14.11.1985 (Annexure 5), issued under Section 2(xi)(b) of the N.D.P.S.Act.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sahabuddin & Anr. vs. State of Assam reported in MANU/SC/0836/2012 considered an identical controversy involving recovery of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate in a bail matter and held as below while rejecting the bail application of the accused :-

(18 of 23) [ CRLMB-3790/2017] "5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants, apart from making his submissions also filed written submissions on behalf of the Appellants. The Learned Counsel submitted that Appellants were only transporting cough syrup, that the content of codeine phosphate was less than 10 mg. (per dosage), namely, 5 ml. and, therefore, by virtue of Central Government Notifications bearing S.O.826(E) dated 14.11.1985 and G.S.R.40(E) published on 29.1.1993, no offence was made out under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act and, therefore, the rejection of the bail application by the learned Sessions Judge as well as by the High Court was not justified. The Learned Counsel placed reliance upon certain decisions of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in support of his submissions. Reliance was also placed upon Rules 65, 97, 61(1) and 61(2) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules along with Section 27 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act in support of his submissions. It was also contended that the Appellants have spent more than 180 days in custody since 17/18.2.2012 and were entitled for bail under Section 36A(4) of N.D.P.S. Act read with proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

11. 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.