IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1055 of 2017 ==========================================================

SANKET RASIKBHAI PAREKH....Applicant(s)

Versus UMANATH C MOLAHALI & 1....Respondent(s)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR ND NANAVATY, SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR YASH N NANAVATY, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS AMRITA AJMERA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH Date : 27/11/2017

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned senior advocate Mr. N. D. Nanavaty is relying upon the notification dated 26.2.2003 by Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs, copy of which is published in The Gazette of India dated 26.2.2003, is produced at Annexure-G on page 237. As per the said notification, ‘Alprazolam’, which was disclosed at Sr. No.1 in Schedule – II of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985, has been ordered to be omitted with entries relating thereto. If it is so, selling of such tablet may not amount to commission of any offence under the NDPS Act. Prima facie, in complaint filed by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence being NDPS Case No. 5 of 2009, copy of which is at Annexure-B (page 84) at pages 87 and 88, there is only allegation against the applicant that one Sanjay Manjibhai Gadhesariya has given a statement that he has purchased such tablets from the present applicant, but he had not asked for the bill or invoice, nor the applicant had given any bill or invoice. However, it is the case of the applicant that in fact applicant has already issued delivery memo, copy of which is produced at page 236. It is also submitted that in fact he holds the license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The applicant is also relying upon communication dated 13.3.2012, copy of which is at page 231, submitting that pursuant to such communication on Schedule H of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, he is having valid wholesale drugs license.

2. Therefore,in view of such disclosure, let notice be issued upon the respondents, making it returnable on 26.12.2017, with a direction to the concerned trial court not to frame charge till the next date of hearing. Considering the details available on record, it would be appropriate for the respondents to come forward with clarity that what steps they have taken against Shri Sanjay Manjibhai Ghadesariya or any other person with reference to the incident for which complaint is filed against the applicant.

3. Direct service is permitted.

(S.G. SHAH, J.)

binoy