CWP No.1257 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1257 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.03.2011 Hemant Goswami ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. APS Shergill, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Standing Counsel for U.T. Administration, Chandigarh. Mr. O.S.Batalvi, Advocate, for Union of India. Mr. Gautam Kaile, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for NCB. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed seeking directions for initiation of prosecution against the respondent No. 6 under Section 59 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Sections 166 and 221 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, a writ directing the Chandigarh Administration to develop a system for immediate registration of complaints relating to cognizable offences, has also been prayed for. CWP No.1257 of 2008 [2] A further writ or direction to have the matter involved in the present writ petition investigated by the Narcotics Control Bureau and Central Bureau of Investigation, has also been prayed for. The writ petition arises out of an incident that occurred in the High Court premises on 21.01.2008. According to the writ petitioner, some pouches containing a product styled as 'SRI BHOLLA MOONAKA' were recovered from a tobacco vendor by the office bearers of Burning Brain Society of which the writ petitioner is the President. Suspecting the same to be a narcotic drug, the petitioner immediately took it to the Narcotics Control Bureau for analysis and the report by the said Bureau was obtained which is to the effect that the sample analysed contained Charas (Hashish). According to the petitioner, thereafter a complaint was lodged on 22.01.2008 before the Station House Officer, Police Station Sector-3, Chandigarh. It is the case of the petitioner that on receipt of the report of the Narcotics Control Bureau a mention of the incident was also made to the Chief Justice of this Court who had directed the Registrar General of this Court to take necessary follow up action in the matter. According to the petitioner, the Registrar General of this Court had instructed him to meet the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh. However, though an interview was sought with the Senior Superintendent of Police the same was not granted. Further more, according to the petitioner, as no FIR had been registered in respect of the incident, the Public Interest Litigation in question was filed on 25.01.2008 seeking the aforesaid reliefs. CWP No.1257 of 2008 [3] The Chandigarh Administration has contested the proceedings. According to the said respondent, the complaint dated 22.01.2008 stated to be lodged before the S.H.O. Police Station, Sector-3, Chandigarh was, infact, not so lodged, though some members of the NGO had come to the Police Station in the evening of 21.01.2008 along with an official of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh who was a part of the team that had collected the sample from the vendor on the day in question i.e. 21.01.2008. According to the Chandigarh Administration, a DDR in respect of the incident was lodged on 21.01.2008 and samples obtained from the official of the Corporation were sent for analysis to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. The report thereof dated 26.02.2008 was received on 25.03.2008. The said report indicated the presence of Cannabis in the samples and accordingly an FIR No. 59 dated 25.3.2008 under Sections 2(iii)(iv) and 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was registered on the same date. According to the Chandigarh Administration, challan has been submitted in the said case against the vendor and the trial is presently being conducted by the competent Court in Chandigarh. The materials on record having revealed that the offending item “SRI BHOLLA MOONAKA' was manufactured by one M/s Sarswat Pharmaceuticals 197, Meeraganj, Allahabad (U.P.), the Court desired to know whether any investigation was done with regard to the licence granted to the said manufacturer for manufacture of Ayurvedic/Siddha or Unani as the product was so marketed. The Court also desired to know whether any investigation was conducted to rule out the possibility of substitution of the originally CWP No.1257 of 2008 [4] manufactured products by the vendor. This was by our previous order dated 31.01.2011. An affidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh has been filed in Court today wherein it has been stated that a Sub Inspector of the Police was deputed to go to Allahabad to gather all necessary information with regard to the manufacturer and the licence granted to it for manufacture of the product under the name & style of 'SRI BHOLLA MOONAKA' . A copy of the licence issued to the manufacturer by the duly authorized licencing Authority of the State of Uttar Pradesh, as collected during the course of investigation, has also been placed on record by the U.T. Administration. In so far as the first prayer of the petitioner is concerned i.e. initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondent No.6 under Section 59 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 166 and 221 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned what we find from the material placed before us is that on the date of the incident itself a DDR was recorded and no sooner did the sample of the offending item was received from the official of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, the same was sent for analysis. On receipt of the report of the analyst on 25.03.2008, an FIR No. 59 dated 25.3.2008 under Sections 2(iii)(iv) and 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was filed on the same day. Thereafter the investigation was conducted and on completion thereof challan was submitted against the vendor. Whether the manufacturer should have been added as a party to the criminal proceedings is an issue over which no opinion CWP No.1257 of 2008 [5] should be expressed by us as the manufacturer is not a party to the present PIL and further more because the trial of the case is presently going on. In the aforesaid circumstances except for the incident where the Senior Superintendent of Police (respondent No.6) had refused to meet the petitioner, no offence or dereliction of duties or inaction can be attributed to any police official. The refusal of the Senior Superintendent of Police to meet the petitioner, even if assumed, could be due to a wide variety of reasons including his inability due to preoccupation. In any event, such action, even if presumed, would not make the Senior Superintendent of Police (respondent No.6) liable under Section 59 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 166 and 221 of the Indian Penal Code. In so far as the investigation of the incident in question either by the Narcotics Control Bureau or the Central Bureau of Investigation is concerned we do not find any necessity to issue any direction in this regard in view of what has been recorded by us in the preceding paragraphs. The investigation of the offence has been completed and the matter is now pending trial in a competent Court. In so far as the direction prayed for in respect of introduction of system where complaints/informations are immediately registered, all that we would like to observe is that the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 read with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contain adequate provisions in this regard and the law having developed to the stage where it is presently poised, we would not be justified in issuing any further direction in the matter. Having CWP No.1257 of 2008 [6] dealt with all the issues raised in the PIL in the above manner we do not consider it necessary to keep this PIL pending any further which is, accordingly, closed in terms of what has been recorded by us above. Before parting with the record the Court would like to record its appreciation for the efforts made by the petitioner-NGO. Such efforts being an ongoing process, naturally, the petitioner-NGO would be at liberty and would be serving the public cause if attention of the Court is drawn to other instances where intervention will be justified. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 15.03.2011 'ravinder'