IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-24957 of 2009. Date of Decision : 5.9.2011. Suraj Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. N.D. Vashist, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-state. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By filing this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seeks quashing of (i) First Information Report No. 9 dated January 10th, 2008 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') registered in Police Station Patti District Tarn Taran and (ii) the order dated April 28th, 2009 passed by Judge, Special Court, Tarn Taran whereby petitioner was ordered to be charged under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and accordingly charge-sheeted. 2. Allegations, in brief, against the petitioner are that on January 10th, 2008 petitioner was apprehended while he was possessing a few drugs viz. Microlit, Subhimol, Momolit, Parvon Spas and 100 un-labelled injections. The seized drugs were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. The FSL vide its opinion (Annexure P-2) found the following ingredients :- Ingredients Average quantity in mg/tablet/capsule/ml in the parcel at I II III IV V Dicyclomine Hydrochloride - - - 9.9 - Dextropropoxyphene Hydrochloride - 64.9 - 64.9 - Ingredients Average quantity in mg/tablet/capsule/ml in the parcel at Paracetamol - 49.8 - 399.9 - Atropine Sulphate 0.02 - 0.02 - - Morphine Sulphate - - - - 9.8 Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride 2.4 - 2.4 - - 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner owns a chemist shop in the name and style Sharma Medicines at Tarn Taran and the drugs were seized from his shop. In the inquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police (Operation) Tarn Taran (Annexure P-3), it was found that the drugs recovered from the petitioner did not fall under the mischief of NDPS Act. The SP (Operation) further sought the opinion of the Drug Inspector. The Drug Inspector also gave his opinion which is in consonance with the inquiry report (Annexure P-3). Not only that, prosecution at one point of time made a statement before this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 3718 of 2008 (Annexure P-4) that prosecution proposed to file report for cancellation of the case. To refute this, no meaningful argument could be addressed by the State counsel. 4. In view of above, FIR No. 9 dated January 10th, 2008 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act registered in Police Station Patti District Tarn Taran and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. However, the prosecution is at liberty to prosecute the petitioner under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 if any offence is made out thereunder. 5.9.2011. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE