CRM No.M-8878 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-8878 of 2014 Date of Decision:-25.4.2014 Mangat Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Addl. AG Punjab for the State. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
(Oral) Tersely, the facts & material, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail filed by the petitioner and emanating from the record are that on 5.3.2013, the police party was present at bridge canal Nangal road. At the relevant time, the petitioner came on motorcycle, bearing registration No.PB-24B-7759 along with a plastic bag. In the wake of its search, 200 bottles of Rexcof syrup, weighing 100/100 ml each, Spasmoproxyvon total 144 strips, which are 1152 capsules and 1600 capsules of Spas were recovered from the possession of petitioner-accused without any valid licence or permit. A writing (ruqqa) was sent to the police station for registration of the case.
2. Thereafter, having completed all the codal/statutory formalities, on the basis of writing (ruqqa) and in pursuance of the indicated recovery, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, vide FIR No.20 dated Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.28 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-8878 of 2014 2 5.3.2013, for the commission of an offence punishable under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as “the NDPS Act”.) by the police of Police Station Garhshankar, Distt. Hoshiarpur (Punjab), in the manner depicted here-in-above.
3. Having exercised his right of bail and remained unsuccessful before the Judge, Special Court, now petitioner Mangat Ram s/o Hardial Singh has directed the present petition for the grant of regular bail in this Court, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.PC.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect.
5. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that only the manufactured drugs/intoxicant tablets and liquid were recovered, no offence is made out under the NDPS Act and since the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the police, so, he is entitled to the concession of regular bail, lack merit.
6. As is evident from the record, that 200 bottles of Rexcof syrup, weighing 100/100 ml each, Spasmoproxyvon total 144 strips, which are 1152 capsules and 1600 capsules of Spas were recovered from the possession of petitioner. It is not a matter of dispute that the intoxicant drugs and pointed narcotic substance recovered from his possession were without any valid licence or permit under the NDPS Act. Moreover, such drugs squarely fall within the ambit of Schedules/Tables, Notifications of 1985 & 1993, subsequent Notification issued under the NDPS Act and The Punjab Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Rules, 2012(for brevity “the Punjab Rules, 2012). Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.28 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-8878 of 2014 3 7. Similarly, Chapter III of the NDPS Act deals with prohibition, control and regulation of narcotic drugs & psychotropic substance. Sections 8 & 80 of the NDPS Act, relevant Rules 64 & 65, Orders 3 & 10 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances(Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 1993 and The Punjab Rules, 2012, postulate that no person shall produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use and consume etc. such psychotropic substances/drugs, without any authorization, permit or licence issued under the NDPS Act and relevant Rules.
8. Meaning thereby, the indicated provisions would reveal that, no person shall possess, sell, purchase, transport or warehouse, use, consume any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance without any permit, licence or authorization by the competent authority under the NDPS Act and relevant Rules/Orders & Notifications. Not only that, he has to comply with the terms & conditions, as envisaged under Order 3 of the NDPS Order, 1993 as well. Notwithstanding, the fact that he may be having any licence under the Drugs Control Act, in view of Section 80 of the NDPS Act.
9. Therefore, if the crux of the pointed relevant legal provisions of the NDPS Act, as discussed here-in-above, is put together, then, to me, the conclusion is inescapable & irresistible that the possession, sale & purchase etc. of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances falling within the domain of Table/Schedule appended thereto, in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act, Rules & Orders framed thereunder, are not only patently illegal, but are punishable under Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act as well. In this manner, the petitioner-accused cannot escape his penal liability in this relevant connection. In case, the submissions raised on his behalf are Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.28 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-8878 of 2014 4 accepted as such, then, to my mind, the very purpose, aims & objects of the NDPS Act, would pale into insignificance.
10. Not only that, from the lengthy submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the following two questions arise for determination:- (i)Whether exact quantity (total mass) of the contraband recovered from offender or percentage of Narcotic drugs/ Psychotropic Substances seized is to be taken into consideration in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations?. If so its effect. (ii)Whether the illegal possession of manufactured drugs entail the provisions of NDPS Act, Rules and Orders or not?.
11. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, identical questions came to be decided by this Court in cases Vinod Kumar Versus State of Punjab, 2013(1) RCR(Criminal) 428 and Parmanand & Ors. Versus State of Haryana, 2014(1) RCR(Criminal) 478. Having considered the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act and relevant Rules framed thereunder, it was ruled as under:- Re: Question No.(i) i) As the contraband seized is either a mixture or a preparation with or without a neutral material, of any Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance falling within the scope of entry No.239 of the notification dated 19.10.2001 issued in S.O.No.1055(E) of the Central Government. It is absolutely necessary to conduct Pure Content Test to ascertain the exact quantity of the Narcotic Drug/Psychotropic Substance contained in the said mixture or preparation. In the absence of Pure Content Test, the whole contraband seized shall not be considered as such. However, in all the cases registered on or after 17.11.2009, there is no necessity to conduct pure content test to ascertain the exact quantity of Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and Manufactured Drugs. The whole contraband seized shall be considered as such even if it comes within the definition of Entry No.239. ii) In the case of a contraband, which is neither a mixture nor a preparation falling within the sweep of entry No.239 and if the contraband is a Narcotic Drug/Psychotropic Substance simpliciter, there is no need for Purity Test and in such cases, the entire quantity of Narcotic Drug/Psychotropic Substance shall be taken into consideration for deciding as to whether the same is a small quantity or a commercial quantity or an intermediate Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.28 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-8878 of 2014 5 quantity for the purpose of conviction and sentence will be imposed accordingly.
12. Likewise, it was held that even the illegal possession of manufactured drugs would invite the provisions of NDPS Act. As depicted here-in-above, the State of Punjab has already framed the Punjab Rules, 2012 under the NDPS Act and the petitioner has not obtained any licence or permit under the NDPS Act. Therefore, he cannot escape his liability in this relevant connection.
13. Therefore, taking into consideration the pointed recovery of heavy commercial quantity of drugs from the possession of the petitioner, to my mind, prima facie, the case for the commission of offence under the NDPS Act is made out against him. The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis”. is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Hence, the contrary submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto sensu”. deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances.
14. Moreover, it is highly improbable to believe that the police will plant such a huge quantity of narcotic drugs & psychotropic substances on the petitioner, as contrary urged on his behalf. On the other end, no motive could possibly be attributed as to why the police would falsely implicate him in this case.
15. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
16. In the light of aforesaid reasons, thus seen from any angle and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.28 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-8878 of 2014 6 is hereby dismissed as such in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only. Sd/- 25.4.2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE Whether to be referred to Reporter ?. Yes/No Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.28 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh