Single judge allowed regular bail to the petitioner涉案於NDPS Act訴。法院接受審查委員會建議，认为涉案药物不在NDPS Act下，允许保释无需最终裁定案件是否受NDPS或藥物法管辖。
Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
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-20652 of 2012(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M- 20652 of 2012 Date of decision : 10.01.2013
Jagdeep Rai
..... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shivali, AAG, Punjab for the State.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK , J
Crl. Misc. No.70478 of 2012
Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for.
Crl. Misc. No.M-20652 of 2012
Jagdeep Rai, the petitioner has sought regular bail
in a case registered by way of FIR No.207 dated 16.09.2011 at
Crl. Misc. No.M-20652 of 2012(O&M) 2
Police Station City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, for an offence punishable under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act).
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the report of the Review Committee has been received under which it is recommended that Jagdeep Rai may be prosecuted under Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. According to him, in view of this report, the petitioner is not liable to prosecution for any offence under the Act. He has further submitted that leaving the question as to whether the case is covered by the Act or the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 to the trial court to be decided after recording evidence of the witnesses, it is at least made out to be a case for bail of the petitioner during the trial.
Learned State counsel has opposed the bail plea. According to her, Phenotil tablets and Dexovon capsules have been recovered in large quantity from the petitioner, who did not have any licence to keep those drugs in his possession.
The matter was referred by this court to the Review Committee, consisting of Drugs Inspector, District Ferozepur, Superintendent of Police Crime, Bathinda Zone Bathinda, Superintendent of Police (HQ) Crime, Punjab Chandigarh and DIG of Police Crime Punjab Chandigarh. The recommendation
Crl. Misc. No.M-20652 of 2012(O&M) 3
of the said Committee is as under:-
“ The Review Committee have gone through the case file and concerned record of the case Jagdeep Rai son of Ved Parkash r/o Basti Blocha wali Circle Road Ferozepur City.
As per FSL report no. 636/2011/Toxi//FSL/Pb. Dated 14.02.2012 of FSL Punjab Chandigarh.
The drugs Dextropropoxyphene recovered vide recovery memo is covered at Sr. No.87 of the Notification No. 826 E dated 14.11.1985 and hence not covered under the NDPS Act, 1985.
The drugs recovered vide recovery memo is Phenotil which contains Diphenoxylate as per FSL report no. 636/2011/Toxi//FSL/Pb dated 14.2.2012 of FSL Punjab Chandigarh is covered at Sr. No. 58 of the Notification No. 826(E) dated 14.11.1985 and hence not covered under the NDPS Act, 1985.
But petitioner Jagdeep Rai did not produce any valid drugs licence and purchase bills at the time of recovery but he have valid Retailsale Drugs licence 8097NB&B Pb & issued on 27.10.1997 to 31.12.2007.
Hence Committee is of the opinion that Jagdeep Rai may be prosecuted under Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.”
The above said recommendation clearly shows that Dextropropoxyphene is as per the standard laid down in notification 826 E dated 14.11.1985 and, therefore, it is not covered under the Act. Same way the drug Phenotil was found to contain Diphenoxylate and the same was also
Crl. Misc. No.M-20652 of 2012(O&M) 4
found to be covered by notification No. 826 (E) dated 14.11.1985. In these circumstances, they are not
manufactured drugs and therefore, it has been found by the Committee that they are not covered by the Act.
It is not the stage for deciding the question whether the act of the petitioner is covered by the Act or Drugs & Cosmetics Act. The stage is only for deciding the question of bail.
In the above given circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find the petitioner 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, Ferozepur.
January 10, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a case involving possession of drugs where the Review Committee opined they are not covered under the NDPS Act.
Whether a recommendation by the Review Committee that the case falls under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act disentitles the petitioner to bail under the NDPS Act.
Whether the petitioner can be released on bail without a detailed adjudication on the statutory coverage of the recovered drugs.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Jagdeep Rai
State of Punjab
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
