Criminal Revision. No.154 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision. No.154 of 2009 Date of decision: 2nd July, 2009 Rattan Chand alias Rattan Lal ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Vinod K.Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioner challenges an order dated 25th October, 2008, passed by the Special Judge, Sangrur, framing charges under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of any wrong doing. The petitioner's son Rajiv Verma, holds a license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act authorising him to store and sell “manufactured drugs”. The petitioner helps his son in his business. On 5th July, 2008, the petitioner purchased medicines from M/s Gulshan Medical Store, Malerkotla, for his sons firm M/s Verma Medical Agency, Nabha. While he was returning to Nabha, he was apprehended by the police and Criminal Revision. No.154 of 2009 2 asked to produce a license. The petitioner produced the bill showing purchase of medicines from M/s Gulshan Medical Store, Malerkotla. The police, however, disregarded the bill and registered the present FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence. He has merely purchased medicines for his sons firm. The police however, have presented a final report and the Special Judge, has framed charges. The trial court failed to consider the fact that the medicines recovered from the petitioner are manufactured drugs. The petitioner was merely transporting medicines for his son's medical store and as their narcotic content falls within permissible limit, the mere fact that the petitioner could not produce the requisite license at its worst would an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. In support of the above arguments, particularly the argument that if the narcotic content does not exceed the prescribed limit, no offence is made out, reliance is placed upon Gurdarshan Pal versus State of Punjab(P&H), 2003(2) RCR(Criminal), 593 Rajeev Kumar versus State of Punjab(P&H), 1997(4) RCR(Criminal) 846, Tejinder Singh @Monto versus State of Punjab(P&H), 1997(3) RCR(Criminal) 645, Deep Kumar versus State of Punjab,(P&H), 1997(2) RCR(Criminal) 417. Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the order framing charges cannot be quashed as the assertions put forth by counsel for the petitioner form a part of his defence and therefore, that can only be raised before the trial court and then also during the trial. It is further submitted, that whether the petitioner was helping his son or his son holds a valid license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act or the medicines were purchased from M/s Gulshan Medical Store, Malerkotla are matters that Criminal Revision. No.154 of 2009 3 have to be raised before and decided by the trial Court. The judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner do not apply as they relate to a persons, in possession of valid licenses. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a licensee, a partner or an employee of M/s Verma Medical Agency, and therefore, cannot invoke the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It is further argued that the medicines recovered are narcotic pain relievers which are illegally sold to drug addicts at exorbitant prices. It is further submitted that where a person other than the licensee or his employees is found in possession of manufactured drugs, the protection available to manufacture drugs cannot be invoked. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the documents appended with the revision. Offences under the Act arise from transport, sale, consumption etc., of a bewildering variety of narcotics and psychotropic substances, both natural and man made. It is common knowledge that a large variety of narcotic drugs referred to, in common parlance as medicines are misused by drug addicts on account of their narcotic content. Unscrupulous chemists, indulge the habit of drug addicts and illegally sell manufactured drugs, as narcotics. When apprehended these chemists fall back upon the permissible narcotic content of the “manufactured drug”, to contend that as they are in possession of manufactured drugs, they cannot be presecuted under the Act. In such a situation, a court may be justified in discharging an accused provided there was no intention to sell the “manufactured drugs” as narcotics. Where however “manufactured drugs” are found in the possession of a person who does not hold a valid license, is neither a partner or an employee of a licensee, the defence that the Criminal Revision. No.154 of 2009 4 contents of the manufactured drugs contain narcotics within permissible limit would not be available to such an accused. I have considered the argument and the judgments pressed into service. In Gurdarshan Pal(supra), the petitioner was admittedly, the driver of a licensed chemists and was transporting medicines. In Rajeev Kumar (supra) the petitioner was a licensee, holding a valid license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the medicines were recovered from the .Medical Store. It was therefore, held that as the narcotic content of the manufactured drugs do not exceed the prescribed limits no offence is made out. The situation in Tejinder Singh alias Monto and Deep Kumar etc.(supra) is similar. It is therefore, apparent that the judgments pressed into service by counsel for the petitioner applies to cases where the accused holds a valid license. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a licensee or an employee of a licensee or a partner in a firm holding a license. It would be necessary to mention here that the drugs recovered from the petitioner are narcotic pain relievers, generally abused by drug addicts. The petitioner's assertion that he was transporting medicines i.e. manufactured drugs for M/s Verma Medical Store, a firm owned by his son, relates to his defence and must therefore, be raised before the trial court. Similarly, the bills reflecting the purchase of manufactured drugs from M/s Gulshan Medical Traders, Malerkotla, would have to be proved by the petitioner in his defence. While considering a prayer of quashing of a charge sheet or an order framing charges, the defence raised by an accused is irrelevant. At this stage, it would be necessary to mention that the petitioner does not hold a license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He does not claim to be a partner or an employee of M/s Verma Medical Criminal Revision. No.154 of 2009 5 Agency, Nabha. The mere fact that the petitioner's son is a licensee, is, insufficient to accept the petitioner's prayer for setting aside the order framing charges. In view of what has been stated herein above, the present petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise the pleas raised herein, before the trial court, during the trial. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 2nd July, 2009 SKaushik