Crl. Misc. No. M- 36650 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 36650 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: December 20, 2011 Vikas Sehgal .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG Punjab for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.207, dated 29.5.2009, registered under Sections 22/61/85 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985(for short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar. The petitioner claims that he has been falsely implicated in this FIR. This is a case where the petitioner has apprehended on 29.5.2009 while driving a motorcycle and was found in possession of following drugs:- “1. 40 injections of NORPHIN 2. 15 injections of AVIL (10 ml.) 3. 40 injections of M-VIL 4. 25 strips (200 capsules) of SPASOM-PROXYONE Crl. Misc. No. M- 36650 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 5. 3 strips (24 Capsules) of PROXYONE 6. 3 strips (30 Capsules) of PROVON SPAS” The petitioner claims that he is a proprietor of Medical/Chemist shop being run under the name and style of M/s Sehgal Medicos at Mithapur Chowk, Jalandhar, for the last 10 years. The petitioner is statedly operating this shop and in this regard has produced on record his licence, where he is authorized to sell, stock, exhibit or offer for sale or the distribution of drugs both biological and non-biological. The said licence is valid upto 31.12.2012. The petitioner says that he has purchased the questioned medicines/drugs through retail invoices. The said bills have been duly issued by the Wholesale Medicine Dealer namely Mithu Medical Agencies, Jalandhar in the name of M/s Sehgal Medicos. He, accordingly, alleges that the false FIR has been registered against him under the NDPS Act. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure P-7 and also a judgment of this Court in Tejpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR 414, where this Court had quashed the FIR by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has made a detailed reference to the quantities of drugs which have been recovered. As per the petitioner, the medicines SPASOM PROXYONE, PROXYONE, AVIL, M-VIL, do not contain any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and in this regard has made reference to notification issued by the Central Government under the NDPS Act. He has also referred to the report of the chemical examiner to say that Dextropropoxyphene was found in PROVONSPAS, but the quantity of said substance in each capsule Crl. Misc. No. M- 36650 of 2010 (O&M) -3- was only 64.9 mg. which is well under the permissible limit of 65 mg. It is also stated that the total quantity of said substance found in 30 capsules of PROVONSPAS was only 1.950 mg. Similarly, it is alleged that BUPRENORPHINE was found in the injections of Norphin where the quantity was .28 mg. per injection and less than the permissible limit of .3 mg. I am afraid, it is not for this Court to go minutely into such details and then to determine whether the FIR is to be quashed. All these pleas are required to be raised before the trial Court, which is also well equipped to appreciate the same and then take a decision. In the reply, preliminary objections have also been raised. It is stated that SI was present along with other officials in connection with nakabandi near Gurudwara Model Town, Jalandhar, where they had intercepted the petitioner going on motorcycle. On his search some drugs were recovered from the bag carried by the petitioner, which was taken in possession. The recovered drugs were sent to Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. After the completion of investigation, the challan against the petitioner has been presented. As per the State counsel, all witnesses have now been examined. The pleas that are being raised now before this Court ought to be raised before the trial Court. Merely because of some percentage of some particular drugs in particular medicines is within limits would not mean that the offence under the NDPS Act is not made out. Such fine appreciation is to be done by trial Court. The question also is that why and for what reasons the petitioner was carrying these drugs on a motorcycle. This is to be explained to the Crl. Misc. No. M- 36650 of 2010 (O&M) -4- trial Court. The menace of drugs being sold to innocent youths is also quite prevalent in this part of the country. The person like the petitioner who may be having a licence have been found to be indulging in sale of such intoxicants to innocent youths and, thus, are spoiling the health of youths of the country. This aspect cannot be ignored while considering such pleas. No case for quashing of FIR is made out. Trial Court will keep all the aspect in view before taking any action and then pass an appropriate order. If it is found that the petitioner is indulging in unauthorized sale of intoxicants even if he has a licence that aspect shall also be kept in view while considering his liability. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. December 20, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE