Single judge directed quashing of FIR under NDPS Act and subsequent proceedings as chemical analysis established recovered tablets contained only salt and Paracetamol, not controlled substances under the Act.
FIR No.51 dated 17.06.2015 under Sections 21 and 22 of NDPS Act and all subsequent proceedings quashed.
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.
126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-20010 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 07, 2017
Hardeep Kumar @ Monu
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Simranjeet Kaur, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against respondent State of Punjab for quashing the FIR No.51 dated 17.06.2015 under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station City Banga, District SBS Nagar along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and filed the reply.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the tablets recovered from the present petitioner containing salt does not fall under the NDPS Act. The tablets recovered, as per FIR, are containing salt Tramadol Vineet Gulati hydrochloride and Paracetamol, possession of which, is not an offence 2017.12.22 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-20010 of 2017
-2-
under NDPS Act.
Learned State counsel has not contested this fact. Even in the reply, it is stated that as per chemical analysis report, the intoxicant powder which was recovered from the petitioner and his associate, was found to be Tramadol hydrochloride and Paracetamol and the same does not fall under the NDPS Act. It is also stated by learned State counsel that cancellation report has already been prepared which has been verified and likely to be presented before the trial Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
Keeping in view the fact that the tablets containing salt recovered from the present petitioner do not fall under the NDPS Act and in view of the reply filed by the State, the FIR in the present case is liable to be quashed.
Therefore, finding merit in the present petition, the same is allowed. FIR No.51 dated 17.06.2015 under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station City Banga, District SBS Nagar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
December 07, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
Vineet Gulati 2017.12.22 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act should be quashed when recovered tablets are found to contain only salt and non-NDPS substances.
Whether a case based on possession of non-narcotic items can proceed under the NDPS Act.
Hardeep Kumar @ Monu
State of Punjab
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
