Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Anudeep Duggal Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

Home
Punjab & Haryana HC
2012
Anudeep Duggal Vs State of PunjabAnudeep Duggal v. State of Punjab

Allowed

Anudeep Duggal v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Nov 2012CRM-M/16850/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an FIR under the NDPS Act involving the recovery of Dextropropoxyphene HCL. Relying on a State Committee report, the court held the drug was a formulation not covered by the NDPS Act but violative of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 55 dated 10.4.2012 and all consequential proceedings under Section 22 of the NDPS Act are quashed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR No. 55 dated 10.4.2012 and all consequential proceedings under Section 22 of the NDPS Act are quashed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the contravention of Drug regulations involving Dextropropoxyphene HCL constitutes an offence under the NDPS Act, 1985.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Where a review committee opines that recovered quantities of Dextropropoxyphene HCL are formulations covered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and not the NDPS Act, no offence is made out under the NDPS Act. The quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed, shifting the offender towards proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

CRM No. M-16850 of 2012 (O&M)

- 1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No. M-16850 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 8.11.2012

Anudeep Duggal

........Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab ......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present: Mr. S.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. K.D.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 55 dated 10.4.2012 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Bathinda.

Vide order dated 31.5.2012, 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.

The committee vide its report has opined as under:- “The Review Committee have gone through the case file and concerned record of this case Anudeep Duggal S/o Kewal Krishan Duggal R/o #13622 St. No. 2, Ganesha Basti, Distt. Bathinda. As per FSL report no. 253/2012/Toxi/FSL/Pb Dated 5.7.2012. The Drug, Dextropropoxyphele HCL recovered vide recovery memo

CRM No. M-16850 of 2012 (O&M)

- 2-

is covered at Sr. No. 87 of the Notification No. 826 E Dated 14.11.85 and hence not covered under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 being drugs formulation.

The Drugs Dextropropoxyphene Hcl is covered under Schedule-H of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

This case is not covered under NDPS Act. Petitioner is Prop. and valid license holder of the firm but he did not produce the documents of sale and purchase and license at the spot/time of recovery of Medicines/Drugs and thus violated the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Rules 1945 Sub Rule 65.”

Thus, in view of the opinion of the committee, no offence under the Act is made out. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 55 dated 10.4.2012 under Section 22 of the Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Bathinda and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

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

(SABINA) JUDGE

November 08, 2012 Gurpreet

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the contravention of Drug regulations involving Dextropropoxyphene HCL constitutes an offence under the NDPS Act, 1985.

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Code of Criminal Procedure482
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act22
Drugs and Cosmetics ActDrugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Anudeep Duggal
respondent
State of Punjab

Coram

AI extract

Sabina

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Punjab & Haryana HC
Decided on: 8 Nov 2012 · November
Registered: 30 May 2012
Case no.: CRM-M/16850/2012
CNR: PHHC010251862012
Topic: Narcotics (NDPS)
Bench: Sabina
Disposal: ALLOWED

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Sabina

M/S Bharat Building Vs M/S Santosh Associates and Anr.
7 Nov 2012
Gurdev Singh Bhullar Vs State of Punjab
7 Nov 2012
Gurdev Singh Bhullar Vs State of Punjab
7 Nov 2012
Sagar Mehra and Ors. Vs State of Punjab
8 Nov 2012
Harpreet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab
8 Nov 2012
Jatinder Pal Singh Vs Amanpreet Kaur & Anr.
8 Nov 2012

Cite this judgement

Anudeep Duggal v. State of Punjab, CRM-M/16850/2012 (P&H), decided on 8 November 2012.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Code of Criminal Procedure482
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act22
Drugs and Cosmetics ActDrugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

Sabina

Parties & counsel