Dismissed

Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 May 2011CRR/592/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge set aside the charge under Section 22 of the NDPS Act against the petitioner. The court accepted the State's submission that without documentary evidence of purchase or sale, the offence lay under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, not the NDPS Act, consequently discharging the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Accused stands discharged under NDPS Act; prosecution at liberty to proceed under Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 592 of 2004 Date of Decision : 24.5.2011.

Kulwant Singh

..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH

¶9

Present: Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶11

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

¶12

Challenge is to the order dated January 14^th , 2004 passed by Special Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby, petitioner was ordered to be charged under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') and was charge-sheeted accordingly.

¶13

The FIR was registered against the petitioner on the accusation that on January 6^th , 2003 in the area of Aliwal road, Batala, he was found in possession of 13885 capsules of Parvon Spas, 7115 capsules of Dexovon, 500 tablets of Nitron 10, 870 capsules of HYP No. Tec., 30060 tablets of Lomotil, 1323 capsules of Spasmo Proxywon, 1152 capsules of Proxyvon, 18000 capsules of Spasmo Proxywon, 347 bottles of Phensedril and 160 bottles of caresene without any license or permit.

¶14

Learned State counsel has submitted a report of the Review Committee wherein it has been recommended that as per notification dated November 14^th , 1985 issued by Government of India, no offence under Section 22 of the NDPS Act is made out against the petitioner but since the petitioner did not produce documents of sale, purchase and the licence at the time of recovery of drugs so, he has committed offence punishable under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

¶15

In view of above statement of learned State

¶16

Counsel, the petition is accepted and order under challenge is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner stands discharged. The prosecution is at liberty to prosecute the petitioner under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, or any other law for the time being in force.

¶17

(NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE

¶18

24.05.2011 SN

Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harjinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jaswinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Balraj Singh Vs Punjab and Sind Bank

Deepak Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Kuldip Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.