Criminal Misc. No. M-25615 of 2010 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25615 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 4th, 2011 Vikas Mangal ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Addl. AG, Punjab. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By this petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Vikas Mangal-petitioner seeks quashing of First Information Report (for short 'FIR) No.119 dated Sept. 2nd, 2009 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the Act”) Police Station – Zira, District Ferozepur. 2. The FIR was registered against the petitioner on the accusation that on September 2nd, 2009 , in the area of Zira, he was found in possession of 750 injunctions of Oxytocin, 40 injections of Tranzat, 360 capsules of Parvon spas, 1392 capsules of Spasmo- Proxyvon, 360 capsules of Dexovan, 400 tablets of Carisoma, 50 tablets of Praedol, 1000 tablets of chlordieazepoxide, 15000 tablets of Momolit, 8500 tablets of Microlit, 15000 tablets of Momolit, 8500 tablets of Lomotil, 20 vials of Recodex Syrup, 10 vials of Relaxcof Syrup, without any license or permit. 3. Learned State counsel has submitted a report of the Review Committee wherein it has been recommended that as per Criminal Misc. No. M-25615 of 2010 2 .. notification dated November 14th, 1985 issued by Government of India, no offence under Section 22 of the Act is made out against the petitioner but since the petitioner did not produce documents of sale, purchase and the licence at the time of recovery of drugs so, he has committed offence punishable under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 4. In view of above statement of learned State Counsel, the petition is accepted, FIR No.119 dated Sept. 2nd, 2009 registered under Section 22 of the Act, Police Station – Zira, District Ferozepur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. However, the prosecution is at liberty to prosecute the petitioner under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, if so advised. 5. Disposed of. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 04.05.2011 SN