Point of Law: Limit of Punishment of Offence Made up of Several Offences - Section 71 of I.P.C. reads: Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided.”

ORDER :

This is the second petition at the instance of the petitioner seeking quashing of charges framed against him on 05.01.2021 in a complaint under Sections 18(C) and 18-A of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Una, H.P.

2. In the earlier petition filed by the petitioner being Cr.MMO No. 497 of 2018, he had sought quashing of criminal complaint only on the ground that the complaint itself emanates out of FIR No. 249, dated 10.08.2013, that was registered against him under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the NDPS Act), in which the petitioner was ultimately acquitted by the learned Division Bench of this Court and the said acquittal stands affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the dismissal of the SLP vide judgment dated 21.12.2015.

3. It needs to be observed that the earlier petition was dismissed by according the following reasons :-

3. What appears from the record is that on the basis of the disclosure made by the petitioner in FIR No. 249 of 2013, the Drug Inspector alongwith SHO, P.S. Una and Health Staff visited the rented premises hired by the petitioner and recovered huge quantity of allopathic drugs, which was stored there without any valid drug licence and on the basis of the said recovery, the aforesaid complaint came to be filed.

4. Now, adverting to the FIR No. 249 of 2013, the facts therein were that the police team headed by SI Krishan Lal Berri was present at Una-Mehatpur Road near Railway Bridge, Shani Mandi, where they laid nakka and at about 10:30 a.m. one motorcycle, black in colour, bearing registration No. 20D-8788 came from Mehatpur side having bags on both handles of the motorcycle was stopped for checking. The motorcyle was being driven by the petitioner Man Mohan Sharma and on checking the bag was found to be containing drugs/injections viz. 18 bottles of Rexcof syrup, 9 Corex syrup, 20 tablets of Nitrazepam, 290 tablets of Alzolom, 780 tablets of Spas Parvon, 1560 tablets Spasmo Proxyvon Plus, 120 tablets of Spasmo Proxyvon, 120 tablets of Proxyvon, 190 tablets of Pantose and 360 injection, one strip each of Parvon Spas, Proxyvon, Spasmo Proxyvon Plus capsules and 10 injection Avil, 2 bottles of Rexcof syrup, one bottle corex and 10 tablets of Alprazolam.

5. Thus, it is evidently clear that the prosecution launched in both these cases emanates not only out of two separate and distinct incidents but also arise under different Act i.e. ND & PS Act and Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

6. It needs to be mentioned that the object of the ND & PS Act is to prohibit use and/or import, export or dealing with such prohibited substances and, therefore, the legislature has specifically provided in Section 8 carving out the exception that in some cases, some substance could be utilized for medicinal purposes, then only to that extent, it would be permissible depending upon the compliance with safeguard. On the other hand, the object of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is totally different, which provided for regulating the manufacturer and use of the drugs and cosmetics with regard to use of substance for the purpose of manufacture of the said drugs and safeguard which has to be adhered to.

7. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings which are relevant for the present purpose are:

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of