IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2101 of 2007 Date of Decision : February 22, 2010 Surinder Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate Mr. P.S. Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) By way of the present revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.8.2007 passed by Special Judge, Kapurthala whereby he was charge sheeted for committing an offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case of the petitioner has since been reviewed by the Review Committee consisting of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Crime, Punjab; Zonal Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar; and Zonal Superintendent of Police, Amritsar. The said Committee has concluded that the provisions of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are not attracted in the case but the petitioner has violated the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The report of the Review Criminal Revision No. 2101 of 2007 -2- Committee has been placed on the record. The recommendations, as made by the Review Committee and stated in the report, are as below :- “On perusal of the Chemical analysis and the Drugs Inspector’s report it is revealed that the drugs chlordiazepoxide, Buprenorphine & Pentazocine are psychotropic substances but according to Rule 66 of the NDPS Act, 1985, a person holding a valid drugs sale license can stock these drugs for sale & distribution whereas other drugs do not fall within the purview of the NDPS Act, 1985. The questioned drugs have been recovered from another shop. The petitioner is a holder of valid drugs sale licence No.2307/NB & 2307/B (Copies attached). Hence, on perusal of the Chemical Analysis Report & the Drugs Inspector’s Report, it is concluded that the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 are not attracted in this case, but has violated the provisions of Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940.” Once the authorities have found that the facts and circumstances of the case do not attract the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the proceedings pending against the petitioner cannot be allowed to proceed. Criminal Revision No. 2101 of 2007 -3- Resultantly, the revision is accepted and the impugned order passed by Special Judge, Kapurthala, while framing charge against the petitioner under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is set aside. However, the authorities would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for violating the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. ( T.P.S.MANN ) February 22, 2010 JUDGE satish