Judgment:
CRM No.M-16061 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-16061 of 2014 Date of Decision:30.07.2014 Gurpreet Singh @ Kaka .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) As is evident from the record that, the first petition bearing CRM No.M-17101 of 2013 for regular bail filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as withdrawn, by way of order dated July 25, 2013 by a Coordinate Bench(Sabina, J.) of this Court.
2. Now, the petitioner has preferred the instant second petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.41 dated 11.04.2013, on accusation of having committed 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 Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur.
3. Precisely, the prosecution claimed that on 11.04.2013, as soon as, a police-party headed by complainant-ASI Jasbir Singh was Rani Seema 2014.08.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-16061 of 2014 2 present at T-point of village Chitton, in the meantime, the petitioner came with a plastic bag in his right hand at the spot. He was apprehended on the basis of suspicion. Having completed all the codal/statutory formalities and in the wake of search of bag of the petitioner, 15 sealed plastic phials of Rexcof of 'Cipla' make were recovered from him without any valid licence or permit. After following the due procedure, the samples and remaining drugs were stated to have been separately sealed and taken into possession, by means of recovery memo by the police. The investigating officer had sent a writing(ruqa) to the police station for registration of the case in this regard. In the background of these allegations and in view of the recovery of commercial quantity of the pointed drugs, the present criminal case was registered against the petitioner, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
6. Ex facie, the celebrated arguments of learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the police, only manufactured drugs/intoxicants were recovered from his possession and since no offence under the NDPS Act is made out, so, he is entitled to the concession of regular bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
7. As is evident from the record that, 15 sealed plastic phials of Rani Seema 2014.08.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-16061 of 2014 3 Rexcof of 'Cipla' make were recovered from the possession of the petitioner-accused without any valid licence or permit under the NDPS Act and the relevant Rules framed thereunder. Such drugs squarely fall within the ambit of Tables/Schedules, notifications of 1985 & 1993, subsequent notification issued under the NDPS Act and The Punjab Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Rules, 2012 (for short “the Punjab Rules, 2012”.).
8. Exhibiting the great concerns with regard to public health, Article 47 of the Constitution of India postulates that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. This Court has noticed the scenario of drug abuse in this part of the country in case Vinod Kumar Versus State of Punjab, 2013(1) RCR(Criminal) 428, as under:- “Drugs of abuse scenario in the State of Punjab: Disturbing scenario of drug abuse in the State of Punjab, is appearing in the various newspapers. “The Hindu”. and the “Tehelka News Magazine”. have reported such drug menace extensively. An extract from the “Tehelka News Magazine”., Vol. 9, Issue 15, dated 14th April 2012, is as follows:-
“75. of the youth. Every third student. 65% of all families in Punjab are in the throes of a sweeping drug addiction. With little or no hope in sight.”
. “Angarh is just one symptom of a monstrous crises: a staggering 75 per cent of Punjab's youth is hooked to drug abuse, a figure the state Rani Seema 2014.08.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-16061 of 2014 4 government itself submitted to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2009. One out of every three college students in the state is on drugs. In Doaba, Majha and Malwa- regions particularly affected- almost every third family has at least one addict. Every kind of drug is readily available here. From smack, heroin and synthetic drugs to over-the- counter drugs like Buprenorphine, Parvon Spas, Codex Syrup and spurious Coaxil and Phenarimine injections. This is a state where 30 per cent of all jail inmates have been arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the DGP has kicked up a political storm by saying it is impossible for him to control the flow of drugs into his prisons. But the sharp irony is, this matters little because, like Angarh, scores of other towns and villages in Punjab are more notorious than any other prison cell.”. 9. At the same time, no one can lose sight of the fact that the NDPS Act was legislated to amend the existing laws relating to Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances and to control the menace of drug abuse, which is adversely affecting the social fabric of the society, containing specific provisions and special procedure. In order to carry out the purpose, aim and object of the NDPS Act, the Central Government has framed the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act & Rules, 1985, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances(Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 1993 and subsequent Relevant Rules and Orders framed thereunder through the medium of subsequent Notifications.
10. Moreover, in the wake of lengthy submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the following two questions arise for determination in the instant petition:- (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. Rani Seema 2014.08.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-16061 of 2014 5 (ii)Whether Manufacturers, Chemists, Wholesale license holders under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 possessing controlled substances and manufactured drugs/ prescription drugs are also required to comply with the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act, Rules and Order 1993 for their possession?. If so its effect.
11. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, identical questions came to be decided by this Court in cases Vinod Kumar's case (supra) and Parmanand and others v. 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 simplicitor, 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 quantity for the purpose of conviction and sentence will be imposed accordingly.
12. Insofar as question No.2 is concerned, it was held that the manufacturers of manufactured drugs or prescription drugs, chemists, Rani Seema 2014.08.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-16061 of 2014 6 wholesale license holders under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are required to comply with the provisions of NDPS Act, Rules and Order, 1993 for the possession of narcotic drugs, psychotropic and controlled substances, failing which, they would be liable to be prosecuted under the NDPS Act.
13. Not only that, the same very view was again reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of cases, decided vide main CRM No.M-13140 of 2012 titled as “Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi Vs. State of Punjab”. decided on 31.1.2014.
14. Therefore, taking into consideration the recovery of indicated commercial quantity of drugs from the possession of the petitioner, to me, prima facie, the case for the commission of the offence, in question, 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. To my mind, in case, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner-accused are accepted as such, then the very purpose, aim and object of the NDPS Act, would pale into insignificance and thereby inculcate & perpetuate injustice to the society at large. In this manner, the petitioner has violated the mandatory provisions, which entails his involvement under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. Hence, it cannot possibly be saith that since, the manufactured drugs were recovered, so, he is entitled to bail, as contrary urged on his behalf. Thus, the contrary submissions of learned counsel for petitioner “stricto sensu”. deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. Rani Seema 2014.08.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-16061 of 2014 7 15. Faced with the situation, the next cosmetic argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, sans merit as well. It is highly improbable to believe that the police will plant such a huge quantity of narcotic drugs & psychotropic substances on him. On the contrary, no motive could possibly be attributed as to why the police would falsely implicate the petitioner in this case.
16. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
17. In the light of aforesaid reasons 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 second petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
18. 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 only for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail. July 30, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.08.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh