In SNP for illegal possession of Parmodex capsules, the Court allowed bail relying on the Review Committee's report that the drug contained Dextropropoxyphene below exempted threshold, rendering it outside NDPS Act purview.
Petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in like amount to C JM Amritsar.
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.
Crl. Misc. No.M-16149 of 2012(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M- 16149 of 2012 Date of decision : 10.01.2013
Bhupinder Singh alias Bhindi
..... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shivali, AAG, Punjab for the State.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK , J
Bhupinder Singh alias Bhindi, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.281 dated 05.12.2011 at Police Station A- Division Amritsar, District Amritsar, for an offence punishable under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act).
Crl. Misc. No.M-16149 of 2012(O&M) 2
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been found by the police having in his possession 5000 capsules of Parmodex. According to him, the ingredients of this capsule are not covered by the Act. According to him, the matter for determination as to whether the recovered substance fell within the purview of the Act or not, was referred by this court to Review Committee, which has given its report in the negative.
Learned State counsel has opposed the bail plea. According to him, a large quantity of capsules of Parmodex have been recovered from the petitioner, who did not have any licence to keep the same in his possession.
From the petitioner, the police recovered 5000 Parmodex capsules on 05.12.2011 . A Review Committee to examine the cases of this nature to find out if they fall under the purview of the Act or not was constituted by this court and this matter was referred to the said Committee. The committee has made the following recommendation:-
“ In this case, the committee is of the opinion that as per test report no.836 dated 27.3.2012 of the drug seized vide recovery memo contains Dextropropoxy-phene HCL as one of the ingredient which is covered at Sr. No.87 of notification No. 826(E) dated 14.11.1985 of NDPS Act (according to which unit drug formulations used for oral
Crl. Misc. No.M-16149 of 2012(O&M) 3
purposes containing less then 135 mg of Dextropropoxyphene HCL used for medicinal purposes are exempted from the definition of manufactured drugs and hence the NDPS Act 1985) and does not fall under the provision of NDPS Act, 1985.”
According to this recommendation Dextropropoxy-phene HCL one of the ingredients of the capsule Parmodex was covered at Sr. No.87 of notification 826 (E) dated 14.11.1985 under the Act because this ingredient was below the prescribed strength. It is further observed that formulations containing Dextropropoxy-phene HCL less than 135 mg per dosage unit was exempted from the definition of manufactured drugs and therefore the material did not fall within the purview of the Act.
Learned State counsel did not take any exception to the report of the Review Committee. In these circumstances, the petitioner appears to be entitled to bail. Hence, the petition is allowed. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.
January 10, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a SNP case given the Review Committee's negative report stating the recovered substance is exempt from the NDPS Act due to ingredient strength?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhupinder Singh alias Bhindi
State of Punjab
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
