Allowed

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jan 2013CRM-M/36158/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought bail in an NDPS case regarding possession of Spasmo Proxyvon capsules. A review committee opined the drugs were Schedule 'H' and the active ingredient did not fall under the NDPS Act, suggesting prosecution under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act instead. The court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety of the like amount.

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-36158 of 2012(O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl.Misc.No.M- 36158 of 2012 Date of decision : 10.01.2013

Harpreet Singh

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶10

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab for the State.

¶15

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK , J

¶16

Harpreet Singh, the petitioner has sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No124 dated 11.07.2012 at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar, for an offence punishable under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act).

¶17

Crl. Misc. No.M-36158 of 2012(O&M) 2

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended

¶19

that the petitioner has been charged in this case for keeping in his possession Spasmo Proxyvon capsules which were 1152 in number. According to him, the report of the Review Committee to which the matter was referred, has been received to the effect that the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted under the NDPS Act and could be prosecuted under Drugs & Cosmetics Act,1940. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody with effect from 11.07.2012, the date of FIR and he is entitled to bail.

¶20

Learned State counsel has opposed the bail plea. According to him, Spasmo Proxyvon capsules have been recovered in large quantity from the petitioner, who did not have any licence to keep the same in his possession.

¶21

The matter as to whether the material recovered from the possession of the petitioner was covered under the Act or not was referred for opinion of the Review Committee, constituted by this court consisting of Drugs Inspector, Jalandhar, Superintendent of Police Crime, Range, Jalandhar, Superintendent of Police Crime (HQ), Punjab Chandigarh and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Crime, Punjab, Chandigarh. The recommendation of the said Committee is as under:-

¶22

Crl. Misc. No.M-36158 of 2012(O&M) 3

¶23

“ The Committee have gone through the concerned record of this case. The Analysis report No.6459 dated 6.9.2012 reveals the presence of drug salts Acetaminophen Dicyclomine HCL, as schedule 'H' drugs and do not fall under the purview of NDPS Act. Further salt Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate falls at Sr. No.87 of notification No. 826 E dated 14.11.1985 of NDPS Act and as per definition do not falls under provisions of NDPS Act, 1985.

¶24

As per the office record of Drugs Inspector Jalandhar, the accused Harpreet Singh does not have valid drugs sale licence issued at his name. But as the drugs recovered from his possession are not covered under NDPS Act, he is not liable to be prosecuted under NDPS Act, 1985 further he could be prosecuted under Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.”

¶25

It is evident from this report that Acetaminophen Dicyclomine HCL, which was found in the capsules, is schedule 'H' drug. The other ingredient was Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate . It is said to fall under entry No.87 of Notification No.826(E) dated 14.11.1985 and, therefore, it did not fall within the purview of the Act. Since the petitioner was not having a valid drug licence and he was recommended by the Review Committee to be prosecuted under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, I find the petitioner

¶26

Crl. Misc. No.M-36158 of 2012(O&M) 4

¶27

at least to be entitled to bail. Accordingly, 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, Jalandhar.

¶28

January 10, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpreet 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

Babita Kumari @ Vinita Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurbax Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dalip Kumar @ Sonu Vs State of Punjab

Kamal Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagdeep Rai Vs State of Punjab