JUDGMENT

P.K. Jain, J. - This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing F.I.R. No.5 dated 6-1-1994, registered at Police Station, Moga for an offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Narcotic Act').

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioners are partners in Firm M/s. Goyal Sales Corporation and are carrying on the business of chemist and druggists at Court Road, Moga, having Drug Licence No. DI-20-B 787600 Nos. 21-B 764800 valid up to 31-12-1993, having applied for renewal vide challan No. 1255573, dated 25-1-1994 (Annexure P. 1). They have also Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax No. 15 80908411 dated 19-12-1991 (Annexure P.2). They are authorised stockists of a number of companies dealing in wholesale medicines having huge stocks to be supplied to the retailers for further sale to the consumers vide Annexure P.2.

3. On 6-1-1994, Inspector Jasbir Singh. Along with his companion, after getting secret information, raided certain premises and recovered certain drugs and injection samples from a room alleged to be in the occupation of one Tarsem Lal son of Babu Ram. Samples were drawn from every lot of drugs and injections and the same were converted into 19 sealed packets. A case under Section 21 of the Narcotic Act was registered against the petitioners. The sample parcels were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh, and the report dated 29-3-1994 has been received.

4. The petitioners have challenged the registration of the case in the present petition on the ground that none of the drugs or injections seized from the possession of the petitioners falls within the category of either Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substance punishable under the Narcotic Act, but falls under the excepted category or is/are covered by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Drugs Act') for which they possess a valid licence.

5. In their return, the respondent have denied their knowledge if the petitioners are licensed Chemists under the Act. It has been stated that the contraband articles were recovered and were seized in accordance with law, that the petitioners are not authorised to keep the recovered medicines that the recovered articles were stored at an authorised place owned by one Tarsem Lal and in any case the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted.

6. Along with their return, the respondents have filed F.S.L. report dated 29-3-1994 (Annexure R.1).

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The seized articles, as contained in 19 parcels, described in the F.S.L. report (Annexure R. 1) can be enumerated as under:

(1) Binorfin injections,

(2) Deprovon-N Capsules.

(3) Capapose capsules,

(4) Lamotil Tablets,

(5) Diazepam tablets,

(6) Norphin injections,

(7) Buta Proxyvon Capsules,

(8) Proxyvon Capsules,

(9) Dionindon Tablets,

(10) Cavisoma Tablets,

(11) Codeine Sulphate Tablets,

(12) Subhimol Tablets,

(13) Phensedyl Liquid,

(14) Proxyphen-N Capsules.

(15) Dextroven apsules.

(16) Sudhinol Tablets,

(17) Phensedyl Liquid,

(18) Fortwin Injections and

(19)  Codeine Sulphate

The question for decision is as to whether any of the above drugs or substances fall within the definition of "manufactured drug" or "psychotropic substance" made punishable under the Narcotic Act. If any of these drugs or substances does not fall within the ambit of the said two expressions, or is excepted by the Act or any rule framed there under or any notification or order issued there under, no prosecution can be launched there for under the Narcotic Act. It may be clarified that if there is any breach or violation of any provision of the Drugs Act or the Rules made There under, a police officer has got no power to seize any