The interpretation of NDPS Act provisions and relevant case law influenced the court's decision to reject the bail plea based on the petitioner's involvement in the possession of codeine mixture above commercial quantity.

1. Petitioner is in custody for more than 355 days and it is submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner was found in possession of 5 litre of codeine mixture.

2. It has been argued that codeine mixture does not fall within the category of narcotic substance under NDPS Act. Reliance is placed on reported in 2017 (3) Crimes 147 (Binod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Bhagat v. State of Bihar). In the said report, seizure had been effected of corex cough syrup containing codeine which was stored in the godown of the transporter under a consignment note for transportation of another drug to a consignee. In the said report, reference has been made to the judgment of the Delhi High Court delivered on 1.12.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 2212/2016 (Pfizer Limited & Anr v. Union of India & Anr.)

3. In the instant case the petitioner was found in illicit possession of codeine mixture which a manufacture drug appearing in Item 28 of the table appended to NDPS Act.

Section 80 of NDPS Act reads as follows:-

"Application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 not barred.- The provisions of this Act or the rules made there under shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) or the rules made there under."

4. The aforesaid provision makes it amply clear that the provisions of the NDPS Act shall have effect in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or the rules made there under.

5. Hence, we are of the view that the decision of the Delhi High Court in Pfizer Limited (supra) which quashes the government order purporting to prohibit manufacture, transport, sale or distribution of Fixed Drug Combinations does not impact the operation of the provisions of NDPS Act, particularly when the petitioner does not even purport to deal in drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It is a settled principle of law that a judgment is an authority for the proposition it decides and not what logically follows therefrom. It was in the factual matrix of the cited case wherein the Apex Court granted bail to the transporter who had stored corex cough syrup under a consignment note purporting to be another drug to be dispatched to a consignee dealing in therapeutic drugs and no law had been declared therein that the illicit possession and transportation of codeine or phensedyl syrup containing codeine for non-therapeutic purposes would not attract the provisions of NDPS Act. On the other hand, in Mohd. Sahabuddin v. State of Assam, (2012) 13 SCC 491, the Apex Court rejected the bail prayer of accused persons who were transporting phensedyl cough syrup containing codeine for commission of offence under the NDPS Act as they were unable to give explanation as to illicit possession of the cough syrup for therapeutic purposes. Hence, we are of the view that the cited case is of little assistance to the petitioner.

6. Having considered the materials in the case diary, prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the alleged possession of the codeine mixture which is above commercial quantity and in view of the statutory restriction under section 37 of the NDPS Act, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected.