Allowed

Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2012CRM-M/13063/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR under the NDPS Act. Relying on an FSL report and a government committee opinion that the seized drugs did not meet the definition of narcotic drugs under specific notifications, the court held no offence was made out.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 221 dated 17.09.2007 and all consequential proceedings arising thereunder are quashed.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-13063 of 2008 (O&M)

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-13063 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.7.2012.

Sukhwinder Singh

........Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Munish Raj, Advocate for Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 221 dated 17.09.2007 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) registered at Police Station Patti District Tarn Taran (Annexure P- 1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶15

Vide order dated 22.1.2009, the matter was referred to the committee constituted by the State Government to see whether the case of the petitioner was covered under the Act or not.

¶16

The committee vide its report has opined as under:- “In this case, the committee is of the opinion that as per FSL Report parcel 1 contain Codein Phosphate Parcel No. 3,4 and 5 were found to contain Dextropropoxy-

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-13063 of 2008 (O&M)

¶18

-2 -

¶19

phene HCL as per Govt. of India Notification No. 826-(E) dt. 14.11.1985, Listed at Sr. No. 87. Parcel no.2 was found to Diphenoxylate HCL Listed at Sr. No. 58 above said notification. Codein Phosphate contains not more than 100 mg. Dextropropoxy-phene contains not more than 135 mg, Diphenoxylate contains not more than 2.5 mg does not fall under NDPS Act. Chlorpheniramine Maleate, Atropine sulphate are neither psychotropic nor Narcotic drugs. Thus these drugs do not fall under NDPS Act. However, the accused did not produced records of the drugs kept by him for sale at time of seizure. Accused contravenes Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.”

¶20

Thus, in view of the opinion of the committee, no offence under the Act is made out. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. No. 221 dated 17.09.2007 under Section 22 of the Act registered at Police Station Patti District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶21

The Drug Inspector would be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.

¶22

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶23

July 16, 2012 Gurpreet

Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhwinder 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

Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Pardeep Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Vijesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Mohinder Singh and Anr. Vs Narinderjit Kaur @ Ninder and Anr.

Lal Mohd. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ashwani Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.