Back
2013 Supreme(P&H) 1296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.
Parmanand and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRM No. M-41661 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided on: 09.12.2013
Advocate Appeared
Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act, the liability for prosecution in case of non-compliance, and the need to prevent abuse and ensure public health.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances - Commercial Quantity Recovery - NDPS Act 1985 - Sections 21, 22 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and relevant Rules framed thereunder. It highlighted the legal provisions related to possession, sale, and transportation of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances without a valid permit or license, and the penalties under Sections 8, 21, and 22 of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the statutory provisions and the need to curb the illegal sale of drugs for intoxication, considering the public health concerns and the constitutional duty to improve public health.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a Drug Control Officer, and another official conducted a raid and recovered a large quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances from the possession of the accused without a valid permit or license under the NDPS Act. The accused sought to quash the criminal prosecution, claiming possession under licenses issued by the competent authorities. The court was tasked with determining whether the recovered drugs constituted offenses under the NDPS Act and whether the criminal prosecution should be quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovered drugs constituted offenses under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the violations of mandatory provisions and the preparation and use of forged documents by the accused. It rejected the argument that the accused were falsely implicated and highlighted the need for compliance with the statutory provisions to prevent abuse and ensure public health.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the possession of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances without a valid permit or license, the applicability of the NDPS Act to manufacturers and license holders, and the validity of the charges framed against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recovered drugs constituted offenses under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the importance of compliance with statutory provisions and the need to prevent abuse and ensure public health. It also highlighted the applicability of the NDPS Act to manufacturers and license holders, emphasizing the liability for prosecution in case of non-compliance.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition to quash the criminal prosecution, emphasizing that the charges framed against the accused were valid and that the petition lacked merit. It clarified that the observations made were for the limited purpose of deciding the petition and would not reflect on the merits during the trial of the main case.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)
The matrix of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, on 11.07.2012 in pursuance of secret information of grave legal violations, complainant Vijay Rani, Drug Control Officer(for brevity “the complainant”) and Mr.M.K.Bhadu, SMO, have constituted a raiding-party and inspected the premises of Sharma Medical Agency, Dabwali. In the wake of search, 15000 Microlet tablets, 20000 Lomotil tablets, 480 bottles of Rexcof syrup, 400 Lupigesic injections, 550 Unizocine injections, 900 Zocin injections, 1200 Spasmocip capsules, 1000 ZZZ tablets, 5000 tablets of Zepose 10 Mg, 5000 tablets of Zepose 5 Mg., 3150 tablets of Decalm 10 Mg., 700 tablets of Decalm 5 Mg., 3300 capsules of Spasmocip Plus, 19200 tablets of Rest 0.5, 6800 capsules of Parvon Spas, 1100 tablets of Anxipam, 390 capsules of Dexovon, 94000 tablets of Antipam 2 Mg., 6000 tablets of Spasmo Plus, 1000 Unizocine Injections (1 ml), 6912 capsules of Spasmo Proxyon, 720 capsules of Spasmo, 2700 capsules of Spasmo Cip Plus, 200 Unizocine injections, 100 capsules of Provon Fort, 96 Fortvin injections, 44000 Momolit tablets, 35400 Prozolam 0.5 Mg., 19800 Provon Spas capsules, 10000 Pheuolit tablets, 5600 Tranax, 8800 Alto 0.5 Mg. tablets, 7200 Spazpmoci Plus capsules, 2000 Parvodex capsules, 144000 Alto 0.5 Mg. tablets, 2160 Proxyvon capsules, 2304 Parvon capsules, 78000 Altipam 2 tablets, 14 bottles of Corex syrup, 25000 Fhenoltil tablets, 90400 Alto 0.5 tablets, 500 Luzapalm tablets, 2880 bottles of Rexcaf cough syrup(602 ml), 480 bottles of Rexcaf cough syrup (100 ml), 3840 bottles of Rexcaf cough syrup (100 ml), 330 bottles of Kilcaf (100 ml) and 5 bottles of Kilcaf (10 ml), were recovered from the possession of the petitioners, without any valid permit or licence under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as “the NDPS Act) and the relevant Rules framed thereunder.
2. According to the complainant, she demanded, but the petitioners failed to submit, the valid permit or licence under the NDPS Act, relevant stock register and sale record etc. in this relevant connection. After completion of all the statutory/codal formalities, the samples and remaining drugs were sealed into separate sealed parcels and taken into possession by way of recovery memos in the presence of witnesses. The prosecution claimed that, huge commercial quantity of indicated Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances was recovered from the possession of the petitioners without any valid permit or licence and relevant record. It was claimed that the composition of salts contained in the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances recovered from the accused, fall within the domain of Tables/Schedules appended to the NDPS Act and the relevant Rules framed thereunder. In the background of these allegations and on the basis of pointed recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, the present criminal case was registered against the petitioners, vide FIR No.288 dated 11.7.2012(Annexure P8), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act(the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B IPC were added later on), by the police of Police Station City Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.
3. Having completed all the investigations, the police submitted the final police report(challan). The Special Judge, taking into consideration the entire material on record, accordingly chargesheeted the petitioners-accused, for the commission of indicated offences, by means of impugned order dated 05.06.2013(Annexure P9). Thereafter, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.
4. Sequelly, instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, now the petitioners-accused have straightway jumped to prefer the instant petition, to quash the impugned FIR(A
