The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner who was in custody for seven months under the NDPS Act for alleged possession of unlicensed tablets. The court ordered release on personal bond.
Regular bail granted on 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-26337 of 2012(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M- 26337 of 2012 Date of decision : 29.01.2013
Baljinder Singh
..... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab for the State.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK , J
Baljinder Singh, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 65 dated 26.06.2012 at Police Station Kulgarhi, District Ferozepur, for an offence punishable under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner was allegedly found keeping in his possession some tablets named Phenotil, Wintram and Lomofen. According to him, the matter was referred to Review Committee, which has
Crl. Misc. No.M-26337 of 2012(O&M) 2
suggested prosecution of the petitioner under the Act. According to him, the recommendation of the Review Committee is not acceptable because Diphenoxylate, which is one of the ingredients of Phenotil falls at Sr. No.58 in the notification No. SO 826-E dated 14.11.1985 of the Government of India and therefore is not a manufactured drug. According to him, the other ingredients of the tablets are reported by the Review Committee to fall in Schedule H of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. He has further submitted that in view of the report, the violation may be under Drugs and Cosmetics Act and not under the Act.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the bail plea. According to him, the report of the Review Committee is to the effect that the petitioner should be prosecuted under the Act. According to him, the tablets found in possession of the petitioner were large in number and he had no licence to keep the same.
The measure of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride in Phenotil is 2.3 mg per tablet and Atropine Sulphate, the other salt in the preparation of Phenotil is .022 mg per tablet. This preparation is exempted from the definition of manufactured drug in Entry No. 58 of the Notification No. SO 826-E dated 14.11.1985. The Review Committee has submitted that the other
Crl. Misc. No.M-26337 of 2012(O&M) 3
salts found in the tablets fall in schedule 'H' of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The recommendation for prosecuting the petitioner under the Act is only because he was not having a valid drug licence at the time of recovery. If one of the medicines do not fall within the definition of manufactured drugs and the others fall within schedule 'H' of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, it can not be said that the petitioner is liable to prosecution under the Act for his not having a valid drug licence. The same may be a violation of the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The stage here is of grant of bail. At this stage, no comment on merits of the case is required. Looking to the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last seven months, I find him to be entitled to bail. The petition is, consequently, 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 29, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail after being in custody for seven months regarding possession of containing unlicensed psychotropic substances.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Baljinder Singh
State of Punjab
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
