Crl. Misc. No. M- 37859 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 37859 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 13, 2011 Ashwani Kumar Tuli .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Arun K. Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.102, dated 7.9.2010, registered under Sections 21/22/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'), at Police Station Division No.3, Jalandhar, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. As per the allegation, the petitioner was found in possession of following intoxicants:- “1. Spasmo Proxyvon (Capsules) = 2904 2. Proxyvon Spas (Capsules) = 180 3. Proxyvon (Capsules) = 180 4. Nargesic (injection) = 5 5. Avil (injection) = 5 Impugned FIR was, accordingly, registered against the petitioner. The petitioner contends that this is a gross misuse of the judicial provisions as no offence under the NDPS Act is made out. Crl. Misc. No. M- 37859 of 2010 -2- The petitioner is statedly running a partnership firm by the name of M/s Shiv Shankar Medicos, at 10-H, Dilkusha Market, Jalandhar and is dealing in whole-some business of medicines. He has placed on record the copies of Annexures P-1 & P-2, which are the Forms A & C. The firm of which the petitioner is the partner, is licensed to sell stock or exhibit or offer for sale or distribute by wholesale drugs. On this basis, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of FIR on the ground that the offences under NDPS Act are not made out on account of this recovery. As per the petitioner, his case is covered under the provision of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules known as Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. He further pleads that only Inspector was competent to file a complaint under the said Act. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on some of the judgments to contend that the petitioner is not liable for ofence under the NDPS Act. It would be appropriate for the petitioner to plead his assertion on the basis of material, which he possesses, before the trial Court and trial Court would take that material into consideration and accordingly, pass an order in accordance with law. The trial Court is fully competent to see if the offence under the NDPS Act is made out from the facts of the present case or not and act in accordance with law. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the pleas before the trial Court. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. December 13, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE