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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 848

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Sachin @ Sachin Yadav & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Inspector of Police, Chennai - Respondent
Crl. O.P. Nos. 18440, 19025, 19374, 20553, 18913 and 20245 of 2022
Decided On : 02-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: G.M. Ramasubramaniam for G.R. Hari, R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, M.P. Rajendran.
For the Respondent: A. Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interplay between the NDPS Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and the implications of violating the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules in cases related to the possession and sale of narcotic and psychotropic substances.

Headnote:

NDPS Act - Bail Petitions - Sections 8(c), 22(a), 22(c), 29(1) of NDPS Act, Sections 465, 468, 472 of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the NDPS Act, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and related rules, emphasizing the conditions for selling psychotropic substances, the interplay between the NDPS Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and the implications of violating the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. The court also referred to relevant case law to support its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought bail in multiple criminal original petitions related to the possession and sale of narcotic and psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were involved in selling drugs and were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners' actions prima facie violated the NDPS Act, and their bail petitions were dismissed based on the gravity of the offenses committed.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the legality of the petitioners' actions under the NDPS Act, the applicability of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and the alleged false cases foisted against the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the prima facie violation of the NDPS Act by the petitioners, the interplay between the NDPS Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and the gravity of the offenses committed.

Final Decision: The court dismissed all the bail petitions based on the gravity of the offenses committed by the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.81 of 2022 on the file of Inspector of Police, R2, Kodambakkam Police Station, Chennai.

Common Prayer:- Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.520 of 2022 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.)

All these Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.81 of 2022 and in Crime No.520 of 2022 pending investigation before their respective respondents.

2. The case of the prosecution in Crl.O.P.Nos.18440, 19025, 19374 and 20553 of 2022 is that on 17.03.2022, the respondent Police received a secret information that near Trustpuram Playground, the accused persons A5 and A6 are selling drug tablets. On receipt of the same, a team of Police went to the place of occurrence and apprehended A5 and A6. On enquiry, they informed their address and after following the procedure as contemplated under Section 50 of NDPS Act, seized the contrabands viz, Nitravit-10 mg, Alprasafe tablets, Unwanted Kit and Tydol tablets from A5 and A6. Based on their confession, the accused A7 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The 7th accused is running a Medical Shop in the name of “Shri Ram Medicos” in Haryana District. He is a main supplier and he supplied the medicine to all over India in the name of “Voiz Med Pharma Pvt. Ltd”. The first accused purchased drugs from the 7th accused through India Mart online company. The 7th accused delivered the drugs through courier. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.18440 of 2022 submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A7. Even according to the case of the prosecution, no recovery was made from the petitioner. He possessed license under Form 21 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and running a Medical Shop in the name of “Sriram Medicos” situated at Haryana. He also produced the GST form and drug license. He is a Diploma holder in Pharmacy and he sells drugs authorized by the license under Drugs and Cosmetics Act at MRP rates directly as well as on-line. He is also authorized to sell the drugs involved in the present case namely Nitrovit 10 mg, Tydol-100 mg, Unwanted Kit-10 mg and Alprasafe-5 mg, under license possessed by him in Form 21 under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He is also authorized to sell all the drugs except Schedule “X” drugs. None of the drugs are referred by the prosecution under the said schedule. He further submitted that the petitioner has committed no offence, even as per the prosecution, as per Rule 65(A) of NDPS Rules 1985, viz, Sale, purchase, consumption or use of psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I permitted only for the purposes mentioned in Chapter VIIA. Therefore, the petitioner has been falsely foisted under Sections 8(c), 22(a), 22(c), 29(1) of NDPS Act and under Sections 465, 468 and 472 of IPC and arrested the accused/A7, on 29.03.2022 at Gurgaon and remanded to judicial custody on 31.03.2022.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.19374 and 20553 of 2022 submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A3 and A4. They are B.E. graduates and permanent residents of Coimbatore. A3 was working as a Service Engineer in Scanner Electro lab and control systems company in Coimbatore for a monthly salary. Thereafter, A3 and A4, joined in the Pharma Company run by the first and second accused in the name of “Voizmed Pharma” for monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, they did not know that “Voizmed Pharma” was a fake company and buying and selling of Nitravet and Tydol tablets was an offence under NDPS Act. He further submitted that even assuming that the case of the prosecution is true and the contraband seized would fall under NDPS Act that too as a commercial quantity, still the prosecution had not established that Nitravet and Tydol are psychot

        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