IMPORTANT POINT
Narcotics--Applicability of NDPS--By violating conditions of license, protection provided under D&C Act, 1940 and Rules framed thereunder vanishes and licensee is open to rigors of NDPS and Rules framed thereunder.

Augustine George Masih, J.:- Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. R.C. SIB 2006 E 003, dated 5.2.2006 registered under Section 29 read with Sections 8 and 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act, 1985) and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D&C Act, 1940) at Police Station I/EOU.V, New Delhi (Annexure P-1) on the ground that no offence under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 is made out against the petitioners and for the offence under Section 27 of the D&C Act, 1940. No FIR could be registered under Section 32 of the D&C Act, 1940 and only the complaint could have been filed before the competent Court.

2. Counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No. 1 Kashmir Chand was the proprietor of M/s Suraj Medical Agency, Court Road, Moga and petitioner No. 2 Roshan Lal was the competent employee under the D&C Act, 1940 and the Rules, of the firm at the time when a joint raid was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation along with the officers of Drug Department of Punjab at the business premises where the business of medicines under Drugs License No. 54850W and 5267W was being done. The license was renewed from time to time and was issued by the State Drug Controlling and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh. The petitioners were authorized stockists and were doing the business of medicines as per the License issued by the Licensing Authority.

3. On 01.09.2006, a joint raid was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation along with officers of the Drug Department of Punjab on the business premises in the presence of petitioner No. 2. Certain contraventions were found at the time of the said inspection/raid. Petitioner No. 2 could not produce the purchase record of 19270, 2ml ampoules of Bup-Norphine batch No. 1451 manufactured by M/s Global Labs, Mohali. Proceedings were initiated for cancellation of the license for the violation of its terms and the license of the petitioner was cancelled by the State Drug Controlling and Licensing Authority Punjab, Chandigarh vide order dated 19.09.2008. It so transpired that initially a case was registered in Central Bureau of Investigation/Economic Offences Unit-V Branch, New Delhi on 05.02.2006 against accused persons namely Kunal Kaushal, Kanhiya Lal, Rahul Goyal and Manish Goyal, all residents of Distict Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh under Sections 8, 22 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 as they were allegedly found in possession of G-Norphine Buprenorphine injections at Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh on 04.02.2006 without any valid authority/documents. After investigation, charge-sheet in the said case was presented against 51 accused persons/firms including petitioners in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. On the basis of the raid conducted at the business premises of the petitioners, new charge-sheet was presented against the petitioners before the learned Special Judge, Moga (Annexure A-1). He submits that in one F.I.R., trial cannot be held at two places i.e. one at Muzaffarnagar and the other at Moga. His further submission is that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. The alleged recovery of medicines does not fall under Section 29 read with Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and under Section 27 of the D&C Act, 1940. Moreover, if any violation is found as per the allegations, only the complaint under Section 18-B of the D&C Act, 1940 could be filed by the Drugs Inspector, who has been authorized under Sections 21 and 22 of the D&C Act, 1940 to search and seize the medicines . If such a complaint is lodged and that to, with a competent Court as per Section 32 of the D&C Act, 1940 and the petitioners are found guilty, the penalty can be imposed only under Section 28-A of the D&C Act, 1940. He contends that the offence under Section 27 of the D&C Act, 1940 is not mad