The main legal point established in the judgment is that possession and sale of ayurvedic medicines containing opium without a valid license is not permissible under the NDPS Act, 1985, and the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, should be read in addition to the provisions of the NDPS Act.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

The present petition has been filed by petitioner-Gurvinder Singh under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on regular bail during pendency of the trial in case NCB Crime No.02/2017 dated 12.01.2017 under Sections 8, 18, 21 and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Amritsar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas, no offence under the aforesaid Section of NDPS Act is made out against him. The alleged recovery is Ayurvedic Medicinal preparations and no license is required for sale and purchase of medicinal preparation containing opium. Learned counsel also submits that there is no violation of provisions of NDPS Act or Rules framed thereunder. As per Chapter IVA of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, a specific provision is there relating to manufacture/sale/storage of ayurvedic, siddha and unani drugs. In violation of any specific provisions meant for sale of such medicines, the maximum imprisonment is up to one year and fine. Learned counsel also submits that there is a distinction between the recovery of ayurvedic medicines where permissible opium is there and the recovery of opium itself. As per allegations in the case, the petitioner has been shown to be guilty of sale, purchase and keeping in possession of ayurvedic medicines containing opium without having any valid license and being violative of Sections 8, 18, 21 and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.01.2017 and he is not a habitual offender as no other case of similar nature is pending against him. One similarly situated accused, namely, Sanjay Kumar has filed CRM-M No.36420 of 2017 and he has been released on regular bail vide order dated 12.03.2018 passed by this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in cases Binod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Bhagat vs State of Bihar, (2017) 4 RCR(Cri) 125, Union of India vs Ashok Kumar, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(S).5243 of 2015 decided on 17.04.2017, Mohan Lal vs State of Punjab, (2018) 4 RCR(Cri) 101, State Rep. By the Drugs Inspector vs Manimaran (Criminal Appeal No.1493 of 2018) decided on 30.11.2018, judgments of this Court in cases Hardeep vs State of Haryana (CRM-M No.16506 of 2018) decided on 15.05.2018, Harkesh Kumar @ Rakesh vs State of Punjab (CRM-M No.21096 of 2015) decided on 22.10.2016, Anil vs State of Punjab (CRMM No.27909 of 2015) decided on 19.12.2015, Dr. Shashi Bhushan vs State of Haryana (CRM-M No.4643 of 2018), decided on 25.09.2018, Binderpal Singh vs State of Punjab (CRM-M No.24502 of 2018) decided on 29.08.2018, Abhishek Chetal vs State of Punjab (CRM-M No.12588 of 2018) decided on 26.09.2018, Kulwant Singh @ Happy vs State of Punjab (CRM-M No.31260 of 2015) decided on 03.12.2015, Deepak Kumar vs State of Punjab (CRM-31715-2017 in CRA-S-5190-SB of 2015) decided on 22.11.2017 and Sanjay Kumar vs Narcotic Control Bureau (CRM-M No.36420 of 2017) decided on 12.03.2018 in support of his arguments.

4. Mr. D.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-Narcotics Control Bureau has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the case. The controversy in the present case is squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.1512 of 2018 titled as State of Punjab vs Rakesh Kumar vide order dated 03.12.2018 as criminal appeal filed by State of Punjab was allowed and judgment of High Court was set aside. Mr. Sharma also submits that huge recovery has been effected from the petitioner and real contents of opium are much more. Petitioner does not deserve to be released on regular bail as he was not having any valid license to sell the medicines, which were recovered from him.

5. H