1. - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 3.9.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 26/2011, whereby, he has framed the charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 8/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

2. Assailing the order of framing charge, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the recovery which has been made from the petitioner is of pharmaceutical drugs i.e. medicines and, thus, charge for offence tinder Section 8/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act has wrongly been framed against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the medicines i.e. Spasmo-Proxyvon capsules, Alprazolam tablets and Parvon Spas tablets have been recovered from the house of the petitioner but simply the recovery of the medicines by itself cannot be a ground for framing charge against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is a licensed pharmacist and mere possession of the medicines at his house cannot make the petitioner liable for the charge under the N.D.P.S. Act. It has also been submitted that i.e. possession of the tablets is otherwise also been submitted that the possession of the tablets is otherwise also not an offence under the Act because the medicines which have been recovered are over the counter drugs. Even if the possession of the said drugs is illegal, then also, the prosecution against the petitioner at best could have been launched for the offence tinder the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. He submits that now-a-days misuse of the pharmaceutical drugs particularly Spamo-Proxyvon tablets 'and Alprazolam tablets is being done rampantly and these medicines are being misused as psychotropic substances for the purpose of intoxication and that is why the Central Government has brought these medicines within the ambit of psychotropic substances covered by the definition of Psychotropic Substances as given in Chapter-1 Section 2 (xxiii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and since the medicines in question are covered under the definition of psychotropic substances, the illegal possession thereof would very much amount to an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act and thus the learned trial Judge has not committed any error while framing charge for offence under Section 8/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act against the petitioner.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the recovery of the tablets in question from the premises of the petitioner has been made on the basis of the information given by the co-accused Yasin Khan, therefore, the learned trial Judge also has to consider framing of charge under Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act against the petitioner for having sold the offending drugs to Yasin Khan. He thus prayed that a direction to the learned trial Court in this regard be given whilst rejecting this revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, record of the case annexed with the revision petition and have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar.

7. The question before this Court is whether the medicines which have been recovered from the petitioner's house are covered under the definition of psychotropic substances within the meaning of the N.D.P.S. Act and if so then the question further would be as to whether the possession thereof is an offence under the Act so as to make the petitioner liable for facing trial under the Act.

8. The definition of the psychotropic substances has been given in Chapter-I Section (xxiii) of the N.D.P.S. Act, which reads as under :

psychotropic substance" means 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 substance specified in the Schedule"

9. Thus the psychotropic substance is a substance which has been included in