JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. One Seethapathy (Accused No.1), since absconding, President of M/s Chandra Importers Inc., New York (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as, “the Company”), was indulging in illegal internet pharmacy business. It has a branch at Coimbatore. Appellant herein (Accused No.2) was managing the activities of the said branch. A search was made in the office of the accused and various documents and computers were seized. It is alleged that the appellant used to mail consolidated requirements by means of packing slips in the name of individual customers to the e-mail I.D. of the first accused. The first accused used to procure different drugs indicated by the appellant by the local pharmacy and pack separately as per packing slips and dispatch the same to the customers abroad through airmail and RMS post office at Coimbatore. The drugs procured and exported are Alprazolam, Lorazepam, Nitrazepam, etc. Indisputably, these drugs find place at Serial Nos. 30, 56 and 64 respectively of the Schedule appended to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the Act”)

3. Inter alia, on the premise that for export of the said drugs no permission from the Competent Authority was obtained, the appellant and his co-accused was prosecuted under Section 8(c) read with Section 22, 23, 25, 27A, 53, 53A and 58 of the Act.

Primarily, relying on or on the basis of a decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta1 [(2007) 1 SCC 355], it was urged that the appellant and his co-accused might have committed an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 but not under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The learned Special Judge as also the High court, however, disagreeing with the said contention of the appellant herein rejected his application for bail.

4. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned order insofar as it failed to take into consideration that all drugs being Schedule ‘G’ and ‘H’ drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, export thereof would not attract the provisions of Rule 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 (for short, “the Rules”) framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 9 read with Section 76 of the Act. Mr. Tulsi furthermore contended that use of the drugs for medicinal purposes is acknowledged in terms of the proviso appended to Section 8(c) of the Act. In any event, he would content, Rules 53 and 64 of the Rules being genus, Rule 58 would be subject to Rule 53.

5. Mr. Mohan Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that in terms of Rules 58 and 59 of the Rules, no export of any drug is permissible unless a permit is obtained for export thereof from the Competent Authority. It was urged that the minimum sentence for the offences committed for which the appellant has been charged being 10 years, this Court should not enlarge the appellant on bail.

6. The drugs in question are no doubt mentioned in Schedule ‘G’ and ‘H’ of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.

7. Section 2(xxiii) of the Act defines “psychotropic substance” to mean, any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material included in the list of psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule. The drugs mentioned in the First Information Report (“FIR”) find place at Serial Nos. 30, 56 and 64 of the Schedule appended to the Act. Chapter III of the Act provides for prohibition of certain operations. Clause (c) thereof mandates that no person shall produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-state, export inter-state, import into India, export from India or transship any narcotic drug or ps