The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of registered Medical Practitioners to possess drugs for medical purposes under the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the absence of contravention of the NDPS Act in such cases.

JUDGMENT

Daya Chaudhary, J. - Petitioner-Dr. Shashi Bhushan has filed the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.246 dated 22.09.2017 registered under Sections 21(c), 25 and 32 the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'the NDPS Act') and Rule 6 of the Haryana De-addiction Centre Rules, 2010 at Police Station City Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a qualified and registered Medical Practitioner, who has completed his M.B.B.S. Degree and Post Graduate Diploma in Psychiatric. Initially he was employed in a hospital but subsequently, due to personal reasons, he started his own centre. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case whereas no offence under the Section in which FIR has been registered is made out. The provisions of NDPS Act are not attracted as there is no bar to keep the medicines by a registered Medical Practitioner or an individual for personal use. The petitioner had already applied for license for Drug Deaddiction Centre but he did not get the same. Learned counsel also submits that the psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act and the drugs approved for medical purposes are covered under Schedules H, H1 and X of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1945 Rules'). All formulations and preparations of Buprenorphine are included in Schedule H1. Learned counsel also submits that Schedule H1 medicines can be sold by retail chemists on the prescription of a registered Medical Practitioner without any restriction. The registered Medical Practitioners are exempted from the requirement of the license. The Buprenorphine has been included in the newly created Schedule H1, which contains a list of 46 prescribed drugs vide Gazette Notification GSR-588(E) dated 30.08.2013. The said drug was earlier included in Schedule H at the time of its approval. The concurrent amendments have been made in Rules 65 and 97 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules relating to the conditions of license and labelling of the drugs listed in Schedule H1. Learned counsel also submits that as per said amendment, there is no bar in supplying of drugs specified in Schedule H and H1 or Schedule X to a registered Medical Practitioner. Even the labelling of said medicines clearly shows that they are not to be sold by retail without the prescription of a registered Medical Practitioner. Rule 66(1) of the NDPS Rules 1985 permits possession of psychotropic substance by a person, who is lawfully authorized under the Rules. It includes lawful possession by the licensee and Others exempted from license under the exemptions clause being a registered Medical Practitioner for treatment purposes including treatment for addicts. Learned counsel also submits that under Rule 123 of the 1945 Rules, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Schedule K has been appended, which contemplates the practice of a registered Medical Practitioner supplying medicines to his own patients. As per Schedule K, the exemption has been given for having license to be obtained for drugs supplied by a registered Medical Practitioner to his own patients. Learned counsel also submits that after obtaining the police remand, the Investigating Agency has carried out certain searches and seizures but in complete violation of the law of the land as neither any search warrants were issued/obtained nor any information was sent to the petitioner's family. The Deaddiction Centre of the petitioner was searched in absence of any responsible member of his family which shows that it was a case of tainted investigation. Learned counsel also submits that same allegations like one Dr. Rajinder Singla, are there against the petitioner, who approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. No. M-37530 of 2015 and he was released on regular bail vide order dated 18.