Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3253
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.
Tribhuwan Singh and another - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Case No. 922 of 2007 and Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 850, 851 and 787 of 2007
Decided On : 27-05-2016
For the Applicant :- A.P. Misra, Vivek Shrotria, A.M. Shukla and Arun Sinha Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :- I.B. Singh and Ms. Shikha Sinha, Jayant Singh Tomar Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the possession and sale of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride injections by authorized license holders were regulated by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules, and did not constitute an offense under the NDPS Act.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Buprenorphine Hydrochloride - Rule 67 of NDPS Rules, Section 8 and 22 of NDPS Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of violating Rule 67 of NDPS Rules and committing offenses punishable under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act by supplying Bunogesic injections without consignment notes and diverting them for non-medical use.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the legal provisions of the NDPS Act, NDPS Rules, and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and concluded that the petitioners' actions did not constitute an offense under the NDPS Act. The court found that the petitioners were authorized license holders under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules, and their actions were regulated by those laws.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners' actions constituted an offense under the NDPS Act and Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' possession and sale of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride injections were regulated by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules, and not prohibited under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the offense under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act was not made out.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act read with Rule 67 of NDPS Rules.
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. –
Since allegations against all the petitioners and legal propositions, which are involved in the above five petitions are identical, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. By means of these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the respective complaints and consequent proceedings before the court below.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers filed in support of these petitions.
4. Briefly stated, the complainant is an Intelligence Officer of N.C.B. Zonal unit Varanasi. Secret information was received vide Fax No. NCB/AZU/INV-1/2004 dated 28.10.2004 of NCB, Ahmedabad zonal Unit that M/s Rushan Healthcare (P) Ltd, Mumbai had sold vials of Bunogesic (Buprenorphine) injection to M/s C.N. Trading, Lucknow and they requested to investigate the further distribution of the said injection at these locations as it was suspected that these injections were diverted for use as psychotropic substance. After obtaining instructions from the Superior Officer, the Intelligence Officer of N.C.B., Varanasi started investigation into the matter and called for details from M/s C.N. Trading, Lucknow regarding sale of vials of Bunogesic (Buprenorphine) injections reported to have been received from Rushan Healthcare (P) Ltd., Mumbai.
5. After completion of the investigation, the complainant filed different complaints against different accused persons as follows : -
1. In Crl. Misc. Case No. 922 (482 Cr.P.C.) of 2007, complaint was filed against Tribhuwan Singh son of Madho Singh and M/s Life Care. The allegation in the complaint against both the above named person is that : -
(i) That on inquiry, it has been found that purchaser (above-named parties) sold drug in question to non-existent parties and the drug in question could not be traced to have been used for medical purposes.
(ii) That from the facts and circumstances, statements, documents and evidence which have come forward in the investigation it is clear that the accused sold, distributed and transported the above-mentioned Bunogesic injections in violation of Rule 67 of N.D.P.S. Rules and drug in question could not be traced to have been used for medical purposes and thus contravened the provisions of Section 8 of N.D.P.S. Act and committed offence punishable under Section 22 of N.D.P.S. Act 1985.
(iii) That from the facts and circumstances and evidence it is clear that the accused had violated Rule 67 of N.D.P.S. Rules and committed offence punishable under Section 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act.
2. In Crl. Misc. Case No. 850 (482 Cr.P.C.) of 2007, complaint was filed against petitioners namely Vijai Kumar Agrawal son of Sri Gopi Krishna Agrawal and M/s G.R. Enterprises. The allegation in the complaint against both the above named is that : -
(i) That from the facts and circumstances, statements, documents and evidence which have come forward in investigation it is clear that the accused supplied 47 thousand ampules of Bunogesic injection without any consignment note in Form-6 as prescribed in Rule 67 of N.D.P.S. Rules read with N.D.P.S. Act 1985 for transportation of physchotropic substance. The accused has distributed the said drug without any consignment note in Form-6 in clear violation of Rule 67 of N.D.P.S. Rules 1985 and distributed to a non existent party which clearly shows that the drug in question has been diverted to non-medical use.
(ii) From the facts, circumstances and evidence it is clear that the accused has violated Rule 67 of NDPS Rules and committed offence punishable under Section 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act
3. In Crl. Misc. Case No. 851 (482 Cr.P.C.) of 2007, complaint was filed against petitioners namely Vijai Kumar Agrawal son of Sri Gopi Krishna Agrawal and M/s G.R. Enterprises. The allegation in the complaint against both the above named is that : -
(i) That from the facts and circumstances, statements, documents and evidence which have come for
