IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRL. MISC. No.31868 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.11.2011 Sukhwinder Singh -----Appellant Vs. State of Punjab -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GOERGE MASIH 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. --- AUGUSTINE GOERGE MASIH, J. 1. Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.118 dated 18.6.2007 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station, City Malout under Sections 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the recovery which has been effected from the petitioner is a Schedule-H drug and therefore, offence, if any committed by the petitioner, would fall under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. He further contends that the salt of the medicines is not covered under the NDPS Act. He, thus, prays that the FIR deserves to be quashed. 3. Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that large quantity of tablets have been recovered from the petitioner and in CRL. MISC. No.M-31868 of 2010 the light of the quantity, offence is clearly made out against the petitioner. The salt of the medicine of which recovery has been made falls under Entry No.44 of the Notification issued by the Central Government which mentions Diphenoxylate and therefore, the recovery which has been effected from the petitioner falls under the NDPS Act. 4. During the pendency of the present petition, vide order dated 16.5.2011, this Court had referred the matter to the Review Committee formed in pursuance of order of this Court dated 22.3.2006 passed in CRR No.1834 of 2003. The Review Committee was directed to submit its report as to whether the offence is made out under the NDPS Act or not. 5. In compliance to the said order, report of the Review Committee dated 4.10.2011 has been placed on record by the Additional Director General of Police, Crime, Punjab, Chandigarh vide communication dated 17.10.2011 addressed to this Court. As per the said report, the violation, if any, committed by the petitioner would fall under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, for which complaint can be filed by the Drugs Inspector. It has further been stated that no offence is made out under the NDPS Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The Recommendations of the Committee reads as follows:- “The Drug Diphenoxylate Hel recorded vide recovery memo covered at Sr. No.58 of the Notification No.826E Dated 14.11.85 and hence, not covered under the NDPS Act, 1985 being drug formulation whereas drug Atropine Sulphate is schedule-H Drugs of drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and as per Rule 66(1) of NDPS Rules any person holding valid Drugs Licnese under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules 1945 can stock for Sale/Distribution the drugs in question. As per record of this office no drug License has been issued to the person Sukhwinder Singh 2 CRL. MISC. No.M-31868 of 2010 S/o Mohan Singh R/o Ward No.13 Burja Road Malout Distt. Shiri Muktsar Sahib. Hence Committee is of opinion that Sukhwinder Singh may be prosecuted under section 18(c) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 as he did not produce any valid drugs licenses at the time of recovery or after word.” 6. In the light of the recommendations of the Review Committee, offence under the NDPS Act is not made out against the petitioner and therefore, the FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom cannot sustain. 7. The present petition is allowed; FIR No.118 dated 18.6.2007 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station, City Malout under Sections 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. November 29, 2011 (AUGUSTINE GOERGE MASIH) ak JUDGE 3