Crl.
Misc.
not M-25453 o”
1. .IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.
not M-25453 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 10th, 2013 Ramesh Kumar alias Bittu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present Mr.R.P.Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Shivali, A.
A.G., Punjab, for the State.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Ramesh Kumar alias Bittu, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.54 dated 25.4.2012 at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur for an offence punishable under sections 21 and 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the Act”.).Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is accused of having in his possession different kinds of tablets.
According to him, those tablets had been schedule-H drugs and, therefore, the provisions of the Act do not stand attracted to the case.
He has further submitted that substance was also in small quantity and as the petitioner is in custody since 25.4.2012, he is entitled to bail.
Crl.
Misc.
not M-25453 o”
2. .Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that the petitioner was in possession of various kind of medicines without having a due permit or license to keep them in his possession.
According to him, some of those medicines are not even covered by notification No.826 E dated 14.11.1985 or schedule-H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
According to him, for these reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
The matter in hand had been referred to the Review Committee constituted by this court consisting of District Drugs Inspector, Jalandhar, Superintendent of Police Crime Range, Jalandhar, Superintendent of Police Crime, HeadquarteRs.Punjab, Chandigarh and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Crime, Punjab, Chandigarh.
The said committee has made the following recommendations:- “The committee have gone through the concerned record of this case.
The FSL report No.313/12/toxi/FSL/PB reveals the presence of drug salts Dicyclomine hydrochloride, Paracetamol, Phermirmine Maleate, Atropine sulphate, Chlorpheniramine Maleate as schedule “H”.
drugs and do not fall under the purview of NDPS Act.
Further salts Dextropropoxyphene hydrochloride, Dextropropoxyphene- Napsylate falls at S.No.87 and salts Diphenoxylate hydrochloride and Codeine Phosphate falls at Sr.No.58 and 35 respectively of notification No.826-E dated 14.11.1985 of NDPS Act and as per definition do not falls under provision of NDPS Act.
Further the drugs Buprenorphine hydrochloride, Alprazolam and Nitrazepam are psychotropic substance mentioned at Sr.No.92, 30 and 64 respectively of the schedule of NDPS Act and covered under NDPS Act, 1985 but as per rule 66 of the said Act a person holding a valid drugs sale licence can stock these drugs for sale and distribution being Crl.
Misc.
not M-25453 o”
3. .scheduled drugs formulation under Drugs and Cosmetics act 1940.
The Drugs Inspector Hoshiarpur vide letter not Drugs/2012/165 dated 26.10.12 in his opinion in this case stated that the accused Ramesh Kumar @ Bittu S/o Sh.
Udha Bhan does not have any valid drugs sale licence on dated 25.4.12 as per the record present in his office.
Accused did not produce any purchase bill and valid sale licence at the time of recovery of above said medicines.
Hence, he is liable to be prosecuted under NDPS Act, 1985.”
Except for Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, Alprazolam and Nitrazepam, the other ingredients of the medicines were found covered by schedule-H or notification No.826-E dated 14.11.1985.
The aforesaid three ingredients are psychotropic substances as per the entries in the schedule.
These ingredients clearly show that the material recovered from the petitioner is covered by the Act and, therefore, is not a case covered by Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Even if, the material so recovered was in small quantity, that would not require the petitioner to be released on bail in all circumstances.
The menace of drugs is on rise and people who deal in such drugs and are busy supplying them to the youth are most unscrupulous persons.
They cannot be allowed bail because on grant of bail, they would return to the same business.
For these reasons, I do not find the petitioner to be entitled to bail.
The petition is, consequently, dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE January 10th, 2013 som