CRM-M No.2242 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.2242 of 2008 Decided on :16.12.2009 Tarun Kumar & another ... Petitioners versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC for quashing the FIR No.240 dated 19.12.2007 under Sections 22/61/85 NDPS Act at PS Dharamkot, Distt. Moga. The petitioners were apprehended while carrying certain medicines which could only be possessed under license. The case of the petitioners is that the uncle of the petitioner No.1 is the owner of M/s Kaura Medical Store, Dharamkot, Distt. Moga while petitioner No.2 is an employee. Further stand is that the petitioners were carrying the medicines on behalf of M/s Kaura Medical Store when they were stopped by the police. As per the reply, the petitioners were apprehended because they were not carrying requisite license at that time. On the asking of the CRM-M No.2242 of 2008 -2- Court, ld. DAG, Punjab has inquired from the Head Constable Trilochan Singh whether any other evidence has come against the petitioners. The answer of the official comes in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision of this Court titled as Ajit Kumar vs. State of Punjab, reported as 2003(3) RCR (Criminal) 186 wherein para No.5 is as follows: “I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I find that the petitioner, who is an employee of a chemist, is not supposed to carry the license with him while he was trvelling with the proprietor of the licensed chemist shop. The petitioner was a salesman of a licensed chemist and it was natural for him to keep the aforesaid drug with him manufactured by an established company. Thus, the trial court was not justified in framing the charge against the petitioner and the same stands quashed.” Learned state counsel is not in a position to deny the applicability of this judgment. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed. FIR FIR No.240 dated 19.12.2007 under Sections 22/61/85 NDPS Act and all other proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. December 16, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE