Criminal Revision No.604 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.604 of 2010 Date of decision:-16.5.2011 Naresh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 12.12.2009 whereby the charge has been framed under Section 22,28,29 of NDPS Act against the petitioner. On 04.5.2007 the petitioner was found in possession of 482 intoxicating pills, which on analysis were found to contain salt Diphanoxylate Hydrochloride 2.4 mg per tablet and Atropine Sulphate 0.024 mg per tablet as per chemical analysis report. These were found on the counter lying in the shop of Harish Chander situated in Chaina Bazar, Jaitu. Counsel for the petitioner has challenged this order by referring the order of this Court dated 06.2.1996 and contends that as per chemical report the drug falls in the category of Lomotil and this is not a substance to which NDPS Act applies. Vide order dated 06.2.1996 in Criminal Misc. No.526-M of 1996, the FIR in that case was quashed. The Court has held as under:- “the petitioner in this case seeks quashing of the FIR Criminal Revision No.604 of 2010 -2- under the N.D.P.S. Act on the ground that the seized article (Tablets known by trade name 'Lomotil' and manufactured by Searle India) is not a substance to which N.D.P.S. Act would apply. The AAG, Punjab, was candid enough to place before me a letter dated 05.2.1996 from the District Drug Inspector, Ludhiana, in which it is stated that the substance 'Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride' and Altropine Sulphate Tablets, are not covered by the said Act. The tablets 'Lomotil' consist of these substance as ingredients. In view of that it is clear that the FIR deserves to be quashed. The petition is thus allowed and FIR No.96 dated 18.11.1995 Police Station Khanna under Section 21/61/85 of the N.D.P.S. Act is hereby quashed. The seized articles be returned to the petitioner.” Counsel for the respondent has not disputed the factual position of this case. In view of the above, order dated 12.12.2009 is quashed and liberty is granted to the respondent to initiate action in accordance with law. The criminal revision is disposed of. May 16, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE