PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L.Singhal, J.
Rajeev Kumar
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal MISCELLANEOUS No. 9771M of 1997,
Decided On : OCTOBER 7, 1997
NDPS ACT - SECTION 21, 22 - DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT, 1940 - SECTION 18(C) - SEIZURE OF DRUGS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - STRICT CONSTRUCTION - EXCEPTION OF CERTAIN DRUGS FROM THE AMBIT OF THE NDPS ACT - APPLICABILITY OF DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT, 1940 - QUASHING OF FIR AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a proprietor of a medical store, was charged under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for possession of certain drugs without a valid license. The prosecution alleged that the drugs seized from the petitioner's possession were narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances prohibited under the NDPS Act. However, the petitioner claimed that the drugs were not narcotics or psychotropic substances but were drugs covered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for which he had a valid license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that none of the drugs seized from the petitioner's possession fell within the definition of "narcotic drugs" or "psychotropic substances" as defined in the NDPS Act. The court also noted that the drugs were excepted from the ambit of manufactured drugs under the NDPS Act by virtue of various notifications issued by the Central Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the drugs seized from the petitioner's possession were narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances as defined in the NDPS Act? 2. Whether the drugs were excepted from the ambit of manufactured drugs under the NDPS Act by virtue of the notifications issued by the Central Government? 3. Whether the petitioner could be prosecuted under the NDPS Act for possession of the drugs without a valid license?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definitions of "narcotic drugs" and "psychotropic substances" under the NDPS Act strictly and found that the drugs seized from the petitioner's possession did not fall within these definitions. 2. The court also interpreted the notifications issued by the Central Government under the NDPS Act strictly and found that the drugs were excepted from the ambit of manufactured drugs. 3. The court held that since the drugs were not narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act, the petitioner could not be prosecuted under the NDPS Act for possession of the drugs without a valid license.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's petition and quashed the FIR registered against him under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and the consequential proceedings.
M.L.SINGHAL, J.
1. This is a Criminal Misc. Petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. by Rajiv Kumar whereby he has sought the quashing of FIR No. 59 dated 18-7-1996 registered at Police Station, Sirhind under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as Act of 1985) against him and consequential proceedings.
2. It has been averred by him that he is proprietor of M/s. R. K. Medical Store, New Dana Mandi, Sirhind carrying on the business of wholesale Chemists under a valid drugs licence Annexure P/1 authorising to sell, stock or exhibit (or offer) for sale or distribute by retail the categories of Drugs specified in Schedule C and C (I) excluding those specified in Schedule X to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and to operate pharmacy on the premises situated at G.T. Road, Bye-pass, Sirhind Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. According to the prosecution, on 18-7-1996 Inspector Harbhajan Singh along with Sh. M. L. Gupta, Drugs Inspector, Fatehgarh Sahib and others raided the business premises of M/s. R. K. Medical Store, Sirhind and seized the following medicines/drugs :
1. 4 x 800 Tab. Lomotil
2. 30 x 10 Tab, Lomotil
3. 85 x 2 ml. Inj. Norphin
4. 45 x 100 ml. Syp. Phensedyl
5. 16 x 8 Cap. Proxyvon
6. 8 x 8 Cap. Spasmo Proxyvon
7. 8 x 18 Cap. Spasmo Prosyvon
8. 22 x 10 Tab. Dizapam.
4. According to the prosecution, the possession of the aforesaid drugs not being medicines/drugs was prohibited by the provisions of Section 22 of the Act of 1985 without licence or permit. For possession of these alleged Narcotics, case was registered against Rajiv Kumar. It is averred that medicines seized are not Narcotics as they are drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
5. Item Nol. 1 Lomotil tablet is a medicine under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as held by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 526-N of 1996. Item No. 3 i.e. Norphin is a manufactured drug as defined in Section 2(xi)(b) of the Act of 1985 as basic salt of Norphin Bufrenorphine. Items Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have been exempted vide Notification No. SO 826 (E) issued by the Government of India in exercise of powers conferred under Section 2, sub-clause (b) of Clause xi of item No. 87 i.e. Dextroproxyphene. Drugs Inspector, Sangrur in his report had categorically stated that item No. 8 mentioned in the seizure memo falls within the ambit of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and not under the Act of 1985 vide report Annexure P/4. In case of manufactured drugs the provisions of Section 21 of Act of 1985 are not attracted. Act applies to certain Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic substances and not to all kinds of intoxicating substances. In nutshell, the claim of Rajiv Kumar is that these are all drugs alleged to have been seized from his possession and they fall within the mischief of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and not within the mischief of Act of 1985. He is duly licensed to sell these drugs under a Licence Annexure P/1 issued to him by the Licensing Authority/Assistant Controller (State Drugs Controller) under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules framed thereunder. He is authorised to keep, sell medicines to retail Chemists and further to the consumers. For prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 complaint by the Drugs Inspector is permissible and not FIR at the instance of police.
6. This petition has been opposed by the respondent urging that drugs recovered from the possession of the petitioner falls within the mischief of Section 22 of the provisions of Act of 1985 and therefore, offence thereunder is made out. At the time of raid, petitioner failed to produce valid licence and the original bills relating to the said items. Said items were examined by the District Drugs Inspector who vide report No. 304/96 Annexure R/1 reported that items Nos. 1 to 3 are psychotropic substances and fall within the mischief of the Act and Chemists having valid licence and valid purchase till are exempted under th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.