Back
Vibhor Rana and Vishal Singh: Quashes Under PIT-NDPS Act
In a significant ruling that underscores the limits of under narcotics law, the on Thursday quashed the detention of two alleged kingpins of a codeine-based cough syrup racket. The bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev, allowed the petitions of Vibhor Rana and Vishal Singh, setting aside the detention orders passed under the (PIT-NDPS Act). The court relied on its recent judgment in , with a detailed order awaited.
The case revolved around the alleged illegal trade and diversion of Phensedyl, a codeine-containing cough syrup, to countries like Bangladesh. While the state government argued that the petitioners were key figures in a multi-crore racket, the High Court found the detention orders legally unsustainable on multiple grounds, including the failure to demonstrate a between the material relied upon and the necessity of , as well as the by the .
The Core Legal Question: Is Phensedyl a ?
At the heart of the petitioners' challenge was a foundational issue: whether Phensedyl falls within the ambit of the (NDPS Act) at all. Counsel for the petitioners, , argued that Phensedyl is neither a nor a as defined under the NDPS Act. The formulation contains codeine phosphate, but within limits that are explicitly exempted by a central government notification dated .
That notification, issued under the NDPS Act, exempts certain codeine preparations containing not more than 100 mg of codeine per dosage unit and not more than 2.5% concentration in undivided preparations, subject to prescribed conditions. The petitioners pointed out that a 5 ml dosage unit of Phensedyl contains only 10 mg of Codeine Phosphate IP—approximately 0.2% concentration—well within the exemption threshold.
This argument was not new. The had earlier quashed proceedings against Rana under the NDPS Act after the seizure of around 61,000 bottles of Phensedyl in Jaunpur in . Additionally, the had discharged Rana in a separate case on , holding that the NDPS Act did not apply to such preparations. The petitioners also cited communications from the in and , which clarified that cough preparations containing 10 mg of codeine per dosage unit are governed by the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules and do not attract the NDPS Act.
and Lack of
Beyond the exemption issue, the petitioners contended that the detention orders suffered from glaring procedural flaws. One key argument was that the failed to consider the earlier judicial decisions that had already ruled on the inapplicability of the NDPS Act to Phensedyl. This, they argued, demonstrated a .
Another major ground was the absence of a between the material relied upon and the necessity of . The detention order was passed on , but the last alleged of a co-accused was recorded on . The authorities proposed detention on , but then took nearly one-and-a-half months to issue the order. The petitioners argued that this unexplained delay undermined the requirement of " " under the PIT-NDPS Act.
Furthermore, the petitioners pointed out that Rana had been in since , in connection with the underlying criminal cases. The detention order failed to demonstrate a real possibility of his release from custody and subsequent engagement in activities prejudicial to the purposes of the law. The High Court agreed, noting that cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal prosecution when the is already in custody.
The Role of Co-Accused Statements and Financial Transactions
The state had relied heavily on statements attributed to co-accused persons to link Rana and Singh to the alleged racket. The petitioners countered that such confessional statements cannot constitute sufficient for . In Rana's case, his name surfaced only through these statements, with no direct recovery from him.
Similarly, in the Ghaziabad case, a raid on , led to the alleged recovery of 1,57,350 units of Eskuf and Phensedyl cough syrup, along with cash and electronic devices. However, the petition asserted that there was no recovery from either Rana or Vishal Singh. The prosecution's interpretation of certain financial transactions between Rana, Singh, and co-accused Abhishek Sharma was also disputed. Rana was the sole proprietor of , a pharmaceutical distribution firm with a valid license under the . The firm had an arrangement with for distribution of its medicines, but operations ceased in , and Rana stopped dealing in Phensedyl after earlier proceedings were initiated against him.
Implications for Jurisprudence
This judgment carries significant implications for the use of laws in narcotics-related cases. The High Court's reliance on the and its insistence on a between the material and the detention order reinforces the principle that is an extraordinary measure that cannot be invoked mechanically. Legal experts note that the ruling may encourage other detenues in similar cases to challenge their detention on the ground that the underlying substance falls outside the NDPS Act's purview.
Moreover, the court's observation that cannot substitute for ordinary criminal proceedings, especially when the accused is already in custody, aligns with settled . The Lokendra precedent now provides a clear framework for evaluating detention orders where the is already incarcerated.
Background: The Codeine Syrup Racket
The case is part of a broader crackdown on the illegal trafficking of codeine-based cough syrups. The racket came to light after the busted a smuggling operation in , leading to the registration of the first case against fugitive kingpin Shubham Jaiswal and 27 others in Varanasi on . Shubham's father, Bhola Prasad, and several other accused have been arrested, and properties worth crores have been forfeited. The police have also intensified the manhunt for Shubham's wife, Vaishali, after a issued a non-bailable warrant against her in connection with fraud and other offences.
Conclusion
The 's decision to quash the of Vibhor Rana and Vishal Singh is a robust reaffirmation of the safeguards built into the PIT-NDPS Act. By carefully scrutinizing the and the procedural lapses in the detention orders, the court has sent a clear message that powers must be exercised with due care and cannot be used as a shortcut to bypass ordinary criminal justice processes. As the detailed judgment becomes available, it is expected to serve as a key reference for litigators and courts dealing with similar issues.
