2014 Supreme(P&H) 940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.
Rupesh Singla and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM No.M-22171 of 2006
Decided on : 21.8.2014
Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. J.S. Sekhon, AAG Punjab for the State.
Recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs without a valid license constitutes an offense under the NDPS Act.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Commercial Quantity of Narcotic Drugs - Sections 21 & 22 of the NDPS Act
Fact of the Case:
The police recovered a large quantity of narcotic drugs from the petitioners' possession without a valid license. The petitioners sought to quash the FIR, claiming they were falsely implicated as they were running a wholesale druggist business under their father's license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs from the petitioners' possession constituted a prima facie case under the NDPS Act. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the allegations against the petitioners were sufficient to proceed with the trial.
Issues: Whether the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs without a valid license constitutes an offense under the NDPS Act. Whether the petitioners were falsely implicated by the police.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs without a valid license constitutes an offense under the NDPS Act. The court also stated that the question of false implication should be determined during the trial.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the FIR was dismissed, and the court allowed the trial to proceed.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(Oral)
Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out from the record, are that on 7.1.2006, a police party headed by ASI Tarlochan Singh was present at Busstand, Chakerian Road, Raipur, in connection with patrolling and checking of suspected persons. Meanwhile, he received a secret information to the effect that petitioners Rupesh Singla and Rohit Singla sons of Roop Chand Singla, have loaded a large number of intoxicating drugs, in their white coloured Maruti car, bearing registration No.CH01X9259 and were going to village Makha, Raipur, to sell the same. Believing the information to be true, the police has sent the writing (ruqqa) to the police station, arranged a Barrier (Nakabandi) and DSP Sardulgarh was also informed accordingly. In pursuance of the secret information, the car of petitioners was stopped. Having completed all the codal/statutory 2 formalities, it was searched and 43500 tablets of Momolit; 400 Capsules Spasmo Parmin; 144 Capsules Spasmo Proxyvon; 5000 Tablets of Diazepam; 400 Tablets of Ampax; 450 Tablets of Altrax; 4150 Tablets of Carisoma; 720 Capsules of Hypvin; 59 bottles of syrup Rexc of and 1000 Tablets of Kuedya, containing commercial quantity of salt/narcotic substances were recovered from the possession of petitioners without any permit or licence.
2. Thereafter, the pointed drugs were taken into possession by the police, vide recovery memos. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of recovery of commercial quantity of indicated drugs and narcotic substances, the present case was registered against the petitioners accused, by way of FIR No.3 dated 7.1.2006 (Annexure P3), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 21 & 22 of, The Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as “the NDPS Act”) by the police of Police Station Jaurkian, District Mansa.
3. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of Special/trial Court, the petitioners have preferred the instant petition, to quash the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, interalia, pleading that they were jointly running the business of wholesale druggists and chemists under the name and style of Roop Medical Store, Mansa. The drugs license (Annexure P1) was issued in the name of their father Roop Chand Singla. He has purchased the recovered drugs from different firms, by means of invoice/cash memos (Annexures P5 to P11). The petitioners claimed that if the prosecution case is taken to be true and accepted as such in its entirety, even then, no offences in question are made out against them. Since they have been falsely implicated in this case by the police, so, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P3) and all consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted hereinabove.
4. The respondent State contested the petition and filed the reply by way of affidavit of Satpal Singh DSP Sardulgarh, interalia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the petition, locus standi of petitioners and cause of action to file the instant petition. The prosecution claimed that the drugs/psychotropic substance recovered from them, duly fall in the category of Narcotic Drugs, for which, the petitioners have no license under the NDPS Act. Therefore, they have committed the offences punishable u/ss 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition of facts, suffice it to say that the respondent State has reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR (Annexure P3). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that the State has stoutly denied all other all