Crl. Misc. No. M-33319 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-33319 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 08, 2011 Leela Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. J. S. Khiva, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Leela Singh has filed this petition for regular bail in case FIR No.1 dated 10.01.2011, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short – the Act), registered at Police Station Boha, District Mansa. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner was found to be in possession of 5000 tablets of Microlit. The said tablets have been found to contain dephenoxylate hydrochloride, which is a psychotropic Crl. Misc. No. M-33319 of 2011 2 substance. In view of notification dated 18.11.2009, the entire quantity of the tablets has to be taken into consideration to determine whether the quantity is small, commercial or non-commercial quantity. Keeping in view the same, the quantity of psychotropic substance allegedly recovered from the petitioner is commercial one. Consequently, in view of Section 37 of the Act, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Counsel for the petitioner, however, relying on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta reported as 2006 (4) R. C. R. (Criminal) 974, contended that although the substance allegedly recovered from the petitioner is mentioned as psychotropic substance in Schedule to the Act, it is not mentioned to be psychotropic substance in Schedule I to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 (in short – the Rules), and therefore, no offence has been committed by the petitioner. I have carefully considered the contention, but the same cannot be accepted at this stage. Judgment in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) is completely distinguishable because in that case, the accused-respondent possessed Ayurveda Shastri degree and by notification of State of Uttar Pradesh, Practitioners of Ayurvedic system of medicines were authorized to prescribe Allopathic medicines also. The respondent was running a Clinic. Medicines recovered from Clinic of the respondent-accused in that case fell Crl. Misc. No. M-33319 of 2011 3 within the purview of Schedules `G' and `H' of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and were Allopathic drugs, which the respondent-accused of that case was authorized to prescribe to the patients. However, in the instant case, petitioner is not a Medical Practitioner in any system of medicines nor he is licensed Chemist. Consequently, judgment in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) is completely distinguishable on facts and is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Dismissed, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case. December 08, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE