SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Dr Dharmendra S/o Sh. Jagat Singh - Petitioner
Versus
UOI, Through C.b.n., Chittorgarh - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3042 of 2020
Decided on : 21-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vineet Jain
For the Respondent: Nr. N.K. Rai

Point of Law: No person shall sell, purchase, consume or use any psychotropic substance except in accordance with Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 Provided that sale, purchase, consumption or use of a psychotropic substance specified in Schedule I shall be only for purposes mentioned in Chapter VIIA

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8, 22, 37, 41, 42 - Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 - Rule 35, 53, 64, 65A and 67 A - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1945 - Section 3, 3(b)(i) - Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - Schedule K - Chapter VIIA - Rule 123 - Sale, purchase, consumption or use of psychotropic substances - Essential for disposal of bail application - Whether infringements alleged are covered under NDPS Act or that it is a case of violation of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules framed there under simplicitor - Whether petitioner had any mens rea to commit offences alleged - Whether violation in case at hand would be of Rule 65-A or that of 67-A of NDPS Rules would be premature and may even prejudice the trial

Findings of the Court: Petitioner cannot be imputed any mens rea because unquestionably very same information was entered in register maintained under Schedule K of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules - Fact regarding petitioner being a qualified Psychiatrist and two hospitals being duly registered with competent authorities is not in dispute - Respondents have set up a case that petitioner infringed Rule 67A of the NDPS Rules, petitioner has set up a case that violation, if any, would be of Rule 65-A of NDPS Rules and would be punishable under Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules framed for which, a complaint would have to be filed in court of competent Magistrate - Relevant Rules 65-A, 67-A, Form No.7 of NDPS Rules and Schedule K appended to Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Violation of NDPS Act is attributed to petitioner, it is clear that details required to be mentioned therein are almost identical to those which are required to be mentioned in Schedule K of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules - Respondents have not disputed fact that registers maintained under Schedule K of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 at both institutions were provided to them - There is no allegation regarding any discrepancies in entries made - Even if it is assumed that petitioner failed to maintain in proper proforma, then too he had no mens rea whatsoever for committing any offence punishable under the NDPS Act or Rules framed

Result: Bail application allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner herein has been arrested and is in custody in connection with Complaint No.1/2020 registered at the office of the Central Bureau of Narcotics (hereinafter referred to as CBN) at Chittorgarh for the offence under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act. He has filed the instant application under Section 439 CrPC with a prayer to release him on bail.

2. At the outset, it may be stated that the petitioner is a medical professional, having qualification of M.D. (Psychiatry). Looking to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that he was suffering from ailments, this court vide order dated 31.03.2020 directed medical examination of the petitioner through a Government Medical Officer. In furtherance of this direction, the report of the petitioner’s medical examination was received. Finding that the petitioner was suffering from neurological ailments, to be specific, spinal chord issues, this court granted interim bail to the petitioner on medical grounds vide order dated 09.04.2020, which has been extended from time to time. While extending the interim bail of the petitioner, it was observed in order dated 20.07.2020 that the petitioner has been advised spinal surgery at the Fortis Hospital. The bail application was heard on merits on 21.09.2021.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the bail application are noted hereinbelow :

4. The petitioner operates two medical institutions in the name of Jyani Kalawati Hospital, one at Birbal Chowk, Sri Ganganagar and the other at Mandi Dabwali, Sirsa, Haryana. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Mishra, Inspector, CBN, claims to have received an information on 21.02.2020 that the petitioner was indulging in illegal transactions of medicinal drugs having narcotic/psychotropic content and if the inspection of the Jyani Kalawati Hospitals at Sri Ganganagar and Mandi Dabwali was undertaken, huge irregularities could be found. Accordingly, two teams of CBN officials were constituted, one for the search of Jyani Kalawati Hospital, Mandi Dabwali (Punjab & Haryana) and the other for the search of Jyani Kalawati Hospital, Sri Ganganagar. Both the teams carried out search operations and inspected the premises. The petitioner was found present at Jyani Kalawati Hospital, Sri Ganganagar. Psychotropic drugs were found in the stock at both the medical institutions, the inventory whereof was prepared. During the course of investigation, details regarding procurement of the drugs in question were sought for and it came to light that all the medicinal preparations had been lawfully procured by the hospitals from approved sources. In the complaint, the Investigating Officer has catalogued the list of drugs seized/used at the two hospitals from the year 2018 to 2020 and at the end of each inventory, a categoric statement has been made that the sale of medicines to the petitioner’s institutions was lawful and did not indicate any irregularity. However, after concluding investigation, a complaint came to be filed against the petitioner in the competent court with the allegation that records of previous three years of both the hospitals were checked and audited. Certain irregularities were allegedly noticed in maintenance of records. A pertinent allegation was made that Form No.7 prescribed under Rule 67-A of the NDPS Rules was not maintained strictly in accordance with the requirement of the statute. Para No.14 of the complaint is relevant to the controversy and is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-

    ^^14- ;g fd vkjksih ds laca/k esa tkudkjh gsrq Jheku~ vfrfjDr vkS"kf/k fu;a=d] Jhxaxkuxj dks fnukad 03-03-2020 dks fy[ks x;s ftlds tokc esa Jh jkeiky] nok fu;a=d vf/kdkjh@tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk crk;k fd dykorh gkWLihVy] 47 lh CykWd chjcy pkSd] Jhxaxkuxj dh nks ckj f'kdk;r ds vk/kkj fnukad 11-03-2018 ,oa fnukad 13-10-2019 dks tkpa dh xbZ FkhA tkap esa MkW /kesZnz flag T;k.kh] ,e-M

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top