2009 Supreme(P&H) 778
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Rajender Singh
Versus
Narcotics Control Bureau
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 32667 of 2008,
Decided On : APRIL 23, 2009
The main legal point established in the judgment is that setting up a manufacturing unit for controlled substances without obtaining a license is a valid ground for charges under the NDPS Act.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Quashing of Complaint - Sections 8(c), 9A, 25A, 29, 22 and 30 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 25, 9-A(2), and 8(c) of the NDPS Act, focusing on the punishment for allowing premises to be used for an offense, power of the Government to regulate manufacturing of controlled substances, and the prohibition against certain activities related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The court also examined the implications of setting up a manufacturing unit without obtaining a license and the punishment for preparation of the offense under Section 30 of the NDPS Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged under Sections 8(c), 9A, 25A, 29, 22 and 30 of the NDPS Act for his involvement in setting up a manufacturing unit for methamphetamine. The petitioner argued that no psychotropic substance was recovered, but the court found that the equipment found was capable of manufacturing methamphetamine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner were valid, as the manufacturing unit was set up without obtaining a license, and the petitioner and his co-accused were not in possession of any license. The court also noted that the chances of conviction were not bleak and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the charges under the NDPS Act, the implications of setting up a manufacturing unit without a license, and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charges were valid as the manufacturing unit was set up without a license, and the chances of conviction were not bleak.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashing of the complaint was dismissed by the court.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint No. 22/2006 titled State (Narcotics Control Bureau) v. Rajender Singh and others filed by Narcotics Control Bureau, Delhi under Section 8(c), 9A, 25A, 29, 22 and 30 of the NDPS Act.
2. Present petition has been filed on 10th December, 2008. Charge against the petitioner was framed on 17th January, 2007. The order framing charge read as under :
"Heard. Documents perused. Aprima facie case for framing of charge under Sections 8(c), (A, 25A, 29 and 22 read with Section 30 of the NDPS Act is made out against the accused. Let the accused be charged accordingly."
3. In the present case, notice of motion was issued by the Coordinate Bench. Reply has been filed by Narcotics Control Bureau and para 5 of the reply reads as under :
"5. Although samples of ephedrine have tested negative yet the presence of other chemicals in the factory establish that the accused persons including the petitioner were attempting to manufacture Meth-amphetamine with the help of seized chemicals/apparatus and thus committed offence punishable under Section 30 of the NDPS Act."
4. After having stated the material portion, on which arguments have been addressed, it will be pertinent to notice the brief facts of the case.
5. It is stated in the petition that petitioner is 44 years old. He migrated to Canada in year 1991. There, petitioner was granted permanent residency and he was also granted citizenship of Canada in March 2006.
6. It is stated that in September 2006, petitioner visited India as his mother was unwell. During his stay in India, he met his friend Manjit Sethi, who requested him to help Hong Kong nationals for setting up a factory at Gurgaon for manufacture of methamphetamine (chemical) and for this, factory premises of M/s Perfect Radiators at village Kherki Daula, NH-8, Gurgaon was taken on rent. Admittedly, as per the petitioner, for manufacturing the said chemical, laboratory equipment was installed.
7. Section 25 of the NDPS Act reads as under:
"25. Punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence. - Whoever being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly, permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence."
8. A perusal of Section 25 of the NDPS Act reveals that anybody being the owner, or occupier of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, permits the same to be used for commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of the Act, commits the offence.
9. Admittedly, in the present case, manufacturing unit of methamphetamine was installed at a rented premises. Para 3 of the petition is reproduced as under;
"3. That in September, 2006, the petitioner vised India as his mother was unwell. During his stay in India, one Manjit Sethi, friend of the petitioner in Canada requested the petioner to hep Hong Kong Nationals for seting up a factory in Gurgaon for manufacture of methamphetamine (chemical) and for this purpose, the Hong Kong Nationals had rented the factory premises for M/s Perfect Radiators at village Kherki Daula, NH- Gurgaon (Near Haldi Ram Joint), Haryana. Further, for the manufacturing of the said chemical, the laboratory equipment had been installed. The petitioner was asked to help them as they were facing language problem in India."
10. Section 9-A(2) vest power in the Government to regulate manufacturing of controlled substances by issuing license permit or otherwise hapter 5 of the NDPS Rules 1985 prescribes the procedure for obtaining license. Rule 37 require manufacturers of synthetic manufacture drugs to obtain a license, which is to be by Narcotics Commissioner.
11. In the present case, one of the