Crl. Misc. No.M-31890 of 2012(Oandm) Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1048006
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-01-2013
AppellantCrl. Misc. No.M-31890 of 2012(Oandm)
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. not m-31890 of 2012(o&m) date of decision:. 01.04.2013 rashpal ..petitioner versus state of punjab ..respondent coram:hon'ble mr.justice vijender singh malik present:- mr.jasjit singh, advocate for the petitioner. mr.amit chaudhry, dag punjab. --- vijender singh malik,j(oral) crl. misc. no.19027 of 2013 application is allowed and annexure p-2 is taken on record. crl. misc. not m-31890 of 2013 rashpal singh @ dhali, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of fir no.28 dated 20.3.2012 at police station ghall khurd, district ferozepur, for an offence punishable under section 22 narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985(for short, the act).learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been held while he was having 2500 tablets of microlit. according to him, the tablets of microlit are having the salts of diphenoxylate hydrochloride 2.3 mg per tablet and atropine sulphate .022 mg per tablet. according to him, this preparation is covered by entry no.58 of notification not so.826(e) dated 14.11.1985. according to him, the petitioner is in custody since 20.3.2012. crl. misc. not m-31890 of 2013 =2= learned state counsel, on the other hand, while filing the report of review committee submits that the petitioner was not having a valid drug licence and purchase bills and therefore prosecution under the act is legal. the report of the review committee filed today mentions that the contraband material i.e.microlit tablets contained two salts, named, diphenoxylate hydrochloride and atropine sulphate. the report itself admits that the material falls in entry no.58 of the above mentioned notification. only for the fact that the petitioner did not have a valid drug licence and purchase bills, it is recommended that he be prosecuted under the act. the salts found in the tablet are not above the limits prescribed in entry no.58 and therefore it is not a manufactured drug. it is rather a prescription drug which was found in possession of the petitioner without his having a valid licence. without commenting on the question as to whether the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted under the act or the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940, the stage being for grant of bail, i take into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last about one year and the trial is admittedly not making the desired progress. in these circumstances, i find the petitioner to be entitled to bail during the trial. therefore, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. april 01,2013 (vijender singh malik ) jiten judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M-31890 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:.

01.04.2013 Rashpal ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr.Jasjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Amit Chaudhry, DAG Punjab.

--- VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL) Crl.

Misc.

No.19027 of 2013 Application is allowed and Annexure P-2 is taken on record.

Crl.

Misc.

not M-31890 of 2013 Rashpal Singh @ Dhali, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.28 dated 20.3.2012 at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur, for an offence punishable under section 22 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(for short, the Act).Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been held while he was having 2500 tablets of Microlit.

According to him, the tablets of Microlit are having the salts of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride 2.3 mg per tablet and Atropine Sulphate .022 mg per tablet.

According to him, this preparation is covered by entry no.58 of Notification not SO.826(E) dated 14.11.1985.

According to him, the petitioner is in custody since 20.3.2012.

Crl.

Misc.

not M-31890 of 2013 =2= Learned State counsel, on the other hand, while filing the report of Review Committee submits that the petitioner was not having a valid drug licence and purchase bills and therefore prosecution under the Act is legal.

The report of the Review Committee filed today mentions that the contraband material i.e.Microlit tablets contained two salts, named, Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride and Atropine Sulphate.

The report itself admits that the material falls in entry no.58 of the above mentioned notification.

Only for the fact that the petitioner did not have a valid drug licence and purchase bills, it is recommended that he be prosecuted under the Act.

The salts found in the tablet are not above the limits prescribed in entry no.58 and therefore it is not a manufactured drug.

It is rather a prescription drug which was found in possession of the petitioner without his having a valid licence.

Without commenting on the question as to whether the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted under the Act or the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the stage being for grant of bail, I take into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last about one year and the trial is admittedly not making the desired progress.

In these circumstances, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail during the trial.

Therefore, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

April 01,2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE