Possession of narcotic drugs without a permit or license under the NDPS Act constitutes an offense, and compliance with the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act is required by manufacturers, chemists, and wholesale license holders.

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

The contour of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, on 16.6.2011 at about 11.30 A.M., as soon as, the police party headed by Sarabjit Singh ASI of CIA Staff, Hoshiarpur reached at the spot near Ravi Dass Nagar, in the meantime, a white coloured vehicle was seen coming from the side of village Shergarh. On the basis of suspicion, the driver was signaled to stop the vehicle, but he made an attempt to run away. However, the vehicle was apprehended by the police party. On enquiry, the driver disclosed his name as Santokh Singh son of Chain Singh, caste Jat, Resident of village Jandoli, Police Station Chabbewal (petitioner). The effort was made to associate independent witness from the public, but every person expressed his inability and compulsion to join the investigation.

2. The prosecution claimed that thereafter, the ASI told the accused that he has suspicion that some intoxicated substance was lying in the vehicle and he (accused) has a legal right of search of vehicle before some Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, but the accused reposed faith and confidence in the police party, his statement was recorded and he signed the consent memo in this respect. In the wake of search, one blue coloured bag, containing 500 capsules of Proxyvon, 25 bottles intoxicant make Rextas, 9 bottles make Wincerex and 90 bottles of Rexcof was recovered from the rear seat of the vehicle of the petitioner. Having completed all the codal formalities, the samples from the indicated drugs were taken and sealed in separate parcels. The remaining intoxicated drugs were separately sealed.

3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that on 16.6.2011, the pointed commercial quantity of NDPS drugs was recovered from the possession of the petitioner-accused. In the background of these allegations and in pursuance of the ruqqa sent by ASI Sarabjit Singh, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, vide FIR No.76 dated 16.6.2011 (Annexure P4), on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the NDPS Act”) by the police of Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur.

4. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of trial Court, the petitioner-accused straightway jumped to file the instant petition to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P4) and all other consequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.

5. The case set up by the petitioner, in brief in so far as relevant, was that he was running a Chemist shop in the name & style of M/s Bassan Medical Store Islamabad, District Hoshiarpur, by virtue of chemist licence (Annexure P1), issued by the State Drugs Controller-cum-Licensing Authority, Punjab. The petitioner was stated to have purchased the recovered medicines, vide bills dated 14.6.2011 (Annexure P2) and 15.6.2011 (Annexure P3) from Suman Pharmaceuticals & Mahavir Medical Agencies, Wholesale Pharmaceutical, Hoshiarpur respectively. It was claimed that the indicated recovered drugs are not covered under the Schedule/provisions of the NDPS Act. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P4) and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereto, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

6. The respondent-State refuted the prayer of the petitioner and filed the reply, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. The prosecution claimed that the aforesaid narcotic drugs were recovered from the possession of the petitioner, who did not show any permit or licence to keep them in his possession. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid r