Niraj Kumar vs Union of India Thru. Narcotics Control Bureau Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2292 of 2025

Niraj Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru. Narcotics Control Bureau Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manish Vaish, Arti Gupta, Km. Manorama Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi

¶7

Court No. - 14

¶8

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Manish Vaish, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Special counsel appearing for the NCB and perused the material available on record.

¶10

This application has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 16.07.2024 passed in Sessions Case No. 1774 of 2024, arising out of NCB Case Crime No. 3 of 2024, under Sections 8/21/22/25 NDPS Act, P.S. NCB, District Lucknow.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was having valid license under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (in short the 'Rules, 1945') for running a pharmacy shop and the shop was being run in accordance with law. It is further submitted that a show cause notice dated 5th December, 2023 was issued by the authorities under the provisions of the Rules, 1945, stating that an inspection was conducted, wherein it was found that cash memo was not issued in terms of Section 65 of the Rules, 1945. It is further found that in the carton box, in which, expired drugs were kept, label of 'expired drugs/not for sale' was not pasted. It is also alleged in the notice that at the time of inspection, rack/cabinets were not found in sufficient numbers and the medicines/drugs were stored on the floor. Further, there was difference in the stock available and the stock shown in the ledger.

¶12

A482 No. 2292 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

Certain goods were also not produced in terms of the sale/purchase order. The approved map of the shop was also not produced during the inspection. Thereafter, the license of the applicant was placed under suspension.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in response to the aforesaid show cause notice, reply was given by the applicant and considering the said reply, the suspension order was revoked on 24.01.2024 and liberty was given for producing the documentary evidences before the Drug Inspector, Lucknow. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that all the relevant evidences were produced before the Drug Inspector in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 24.01.2024.

¶16

Thereafter, officials of Narcotics Control Bureau issued a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act on 3rd February, 2024, in pursuance to which, the applicant appeared before the Authorities and had given the statement as well as informed that proceedings under the Rules, 1945 are going on and the license, which was placed under suspension, has been revoked after considering the reply of the applicant to the show cause notice. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even then the applicant was taken into custody and remand was sought. It is vehemently submitted that the officials of NCB misused their power, as neither any goods were recovered nor any search was carried out in terms of Sections 42, 43 and 44 of NDPS Act. It is also submitted that no compliance of Sections 50 or 52-A of NDPS Act was done.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the arrest of the applicant was not necessary, as no custodial interrogation was required, the applicant moved Bail Application No. 2714 of 2024 (Niraj Kumar Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau), which was allowed vide order dated 12.03.2024 with the direction to the Zonal Director, NCB, Lucknow to see the manner in which the NCB officials have acted against the applicant and if required, take steps for punishment of the guilty in terms of the mandate of Section 58 of NDPS Act, after holding a departmental enquiry.

¶18

A482 No. 2292 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

It is submitted that complaint was filed by the officials of respondent on 16.07.2024 on imaginary facts, without annexing any adequate evidences. It is further submitted that as the officials of NCB acted in violation of the intention of the provisions of NDPS Act, indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent-NCB opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that sufficient material was found against the applicant and thereafter, he was taken into custody. It is further submitted that after detail inquiry, complaint was filed and the cognizance was taken by the court below and there is no illegality in the same. It is also submitted that departmental enquiry was also conducted in pursuance of the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 2714 of 2024, in which, nothing adverse was found against the officials. It is, thus, submitted that interference is required in the matter.

¶22

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel appearing for NCB and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R. as well as complaint filed by the officials of NCB, it is evident that initially, the license of the applicant was placed under suspension, but after considering his reply to the show cause notice, the same was revoked on 24.01.2024 with certain directions and the proceedings under the provisions of Rules, 1945 were going on. In the meantime, notice was issued by the officials of the NCB under Section 67 of NDPS Act and thereafter, the applicant was taken into custody. The enquiry report placed by the learned counsel for the NCB, which is duly signed by Mr. P.K. Srivastava, Zonal Director, NCB, Lucknow reveals that not even a single recovery memo or inspection memo was prepared by the officials of NCB.

¶23

In such circumstances, the matter requires consideration.

¶24

Two weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the respondent to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.

¶25

A482 No. 2292 of 2025

¶26

4

¶27