Back
2012 Supreme(P&H) 1065
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.
Jagtar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CRM No. M-28114 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 12.9.2012
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.
The pure content test is necessary to ascertain the exact quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and manufacturers and license holders are required to comply with the provisions of the NDPS Act.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act - Recovery of Drugs - Sections 22, 25 & 60 of the NDPS Act - Pure Content Test - Manufacturers' Compliance with NDPS Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was apprehended with a large quantity of drugs without a permit or license. He sought regular bail, claiming that no pointed offenses were made out and the recovery of a commercial quantity of drugs was not proved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim and dismissed the petition for regular bail.
Issues: The court considered whether the exact quantity or percentage of the contraband seized should be taken into consideration, and whether manufacturers and license holders under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are required to comply with the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to previous judgments and ruled that the pure content test is necessary to ascertain the exact quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It also held that manufacturers and license holders are required to comply with the provisions of the NDPS Act.
Final Decision: The petition for regular bail was dismissed, and the court emphasized the need to curb the increasing tendency and frequency of selling narcotic drugs.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for regular bail and emanating from the record, is that, on 20.4.2012, a police party headed by ASI Harbhajan Singh, consisted of other police officials, was present near Raymondwala Chowk. PW Amrik Singh son of Gurdial Singh also reached there. As soon as, the police party reached near the Circular Road of village Jawanharke (place of occurrence), in the meantime, the petitioner-accused was seen coming on his motorcycle, bearing registration No.PB-10-CM-2052 on a metaled road. On seeing the police party, he became perplexed and immediately tried to turn back, but his motor-cycle slipped in that process. He along with his bag fell down on the ground. Some vials and tablets were spread out of the bag on the road. On the basis of suspicion, the accused was apprehended by the police party, who disclosed his name as Jagtar Singh son of Karamjit Singh (petitioner).
2. Having completed all the codal formalities and in the wake of search, 150 vials, each containing 100 tablets mark Diatil, (total 15000 tablets) and 14 strips, each containing 80 tablets (total 1120 tablets) were recovered from the bag of the petitioner. After taking samples, the remaining drugs were sealed into separate parcels and taken into possession, vide recovery memo in the presence of independent witness Amrik Singh.
3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that 15000 tablets of Diatil & 1120 tablets of Alprazolam were recovered from the possession of the petitioner without any permit or licence. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of recovery of indicated commercial drugs, the present case was registered against the petitioner, by virtue of FIR No.21 dated 20.4.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 22, 25 & 60 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as “the NDPS Act”) by the police of Police Station Kot Dharmu, Distt. Mansa.
4. Having exercised and lost his right of bail before Additional Sessions Judge, now the petitioner-accused has preferred the instant petition for regular bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.
6. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that since the manufactured drugs were recovered, no pointed offences are made out and moreover the recovery of commercial quantity of drugs is not proved, so, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
7. As is evident from the record, that according to the prosecution that the commercial quantity of 15000 Tablets of Diatil & 1120 Tablets of Alprazolam were recovered from the possession of the petitioner without any permit or licence. From the lengthy contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the following two questions arise for determination:-
(i) Whether exact quantity (total mass) of the contraband recovered from offender or percentage of Narcotic drugs/ Psychotropic Substances seized is to be taken into consideration in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations? If so its effect.
(ii)Whether Manufacturers, Chemists, Wholesale license holders under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 possessing controlled substances and manufactured drugs/ prescription drugs are also required to comply with the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act, Rules and Order 1993 for their possession? If so its effect.
8. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the identical questions came to be decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (
