Criminal Revision No. 1019 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1019 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.01.2010 Parmanand Sharma son of Ram Datt Sharma, r/o Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa. ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the order, dated 07.02.09, rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which, it framed charge, against the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only). 2. The facts, in brief, are that, 18.10.07, Krishan Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector, while posted, at Police Station Sadar, Dabwali, alongwith some other Police officials, was present at Bus Stand Mandi Dabwali, in connection with excise checking, when a secret Criminal Revision No. 1019 of 2009 2 information, was received, that Inderjeet and Gulab Singh, accused, were present, in the street, leading from Sharma Medical Hall to Railway Station, Dabwali, on their motorcycle make 'Hero Honda', and that after purchasing the narcotic drugs, they used to take the same to Punjab. It was also informed that, both of them, had come to purchase the narcotic drugs, from Sharma Medical Hall, Dabwali, and could be apprehended. On receipt of this secret information, a picket, was held, at Chetak Road, T-Point, Dabwali. After sometime, a motorcycle came. The motorcycle stopped at once. Thereafter, the rider and the pillion rider of the motorcycle, succeeded in running away. On checking polythene envelope, it was found, containing 100 packets of Momolite tablets each containing 100 tablets and 72 x 8 Spasmo Proxyvone Capsules and 23 x 5 x 10 Carisoma Tablets, which were suspected to be narcotic drugs. The same were taken into possession. Gulab Singh and Inderjeet Singh, accused, were ultimately arresteed. They made disclosure statements, that the said tablets, were purchased by them, from Sharma Medical Hall. On analysis of the aforesaid tablets, the same, were found, containing Diphenoxylate Propoxyphene, and ultimately, the accused-petitioner, alongwith Gulab Singh and co- accused, were challaned. 3. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused, were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 21 of the Act, was framed against the accused, by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa, on 07.02.09. Criminal Revision No. 1019 of 2009 3 4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner, possesses a wholesale drug licence. He further submitted that the petitioner, was selling the drugs, on the basis of drug licence, which he was having for stocking, sale and distribution of the drugs, in question He further submitted that the tablets, in question, fell within the purview of Schedule H of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and, no offence, punishable under Section 21 of the Act, was constituted. He further submitted that the order dated 07.02.09, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa, directing, that the charge, under Section 21 of the Act, be framed, against the accused-petitioner, was, thus, illegal. He also placed reliance, on Tejpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2008(2), RCR (Criminal), 414, in support of his contention. 6. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, no wholesale drug licence, or copy thereof, was produced, by the petitioner. He further submitted that, on the other hand, the licence to sell, stock, or distribute the drugs, was issued, in favour of Daya Nand son of Sh. Ram Dutt, as is evident, from the copies of form 20-B and 21-B, placed on record. He further submitted that, since Parmanand, petitioner, was not holding a drug licence, for the sale of such drugs, he could not claim, that he did not commit any offence, punishable under Section 21 of the Act. He further submitted that the order impugned dated 07.02.09, is legal and valid. Criminal Revision No. 1019 of 2009 4 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. The only claim of the petitioner, was that, he was having a valid wholesale drug licence. From the order impugned, it is also evident, that no such drug licence, was produced, by the petitioner. P1 a copy of the letter, from the State Drugs Controller-cum-Licencing Authority, Directorate General Health Services, Haryana, was placed, on record, which was addressed to Sharma Medical Agencies. It is evident, from this document, that Wholesale Drugs Licence No. 9729, was granted, to the said concern, from 13.02.02 to 12.02.07, and the name of the competent person, recorded therein, was Daya Nand son of Ram Dutt. It is further evident, from a copy of form 20-B, placed on record, that the licence, was also issued, to the competent person namely Daya Nand son of Ram Dutt. No doubt, the petitioner, placed reliance, on a copy of the challan, regarding the deposit of the amount, in the Treasury, by him, and copy of the application for renewal of the drug licence. However, filing of these documents, does not, in any way, go to prima-facie establish, that the drug licence, was issued, in favour of Parmanand. Anybody, could deposit the amount, for the issuance of drug licence, on behalf of Daya Nand, having been authorized by him. Any person, on behalf of M/s Sharma Medical Agencies, could move an application for the renewal of licence. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the Criminal Revision No. 1019 of 2009 5 petitioner, from Tejpal Singh's case (supra). In that case, Tejpal Singh, was found having a valid drug sale licence. It was, under these circumstances, that the Court held, that the substance, recovered from him, did not constitute the offence, punishable under Section 21/22 of the Act. Even the report of the Drug Inspector, had been received, in that case, that the salt, contained in the capsules, did not constitute the narcotic substance. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 8. The trial Court, exercised the discretion, in framing the charge, against the petitioner, for the aforesaid offence, in a judicious manner. The discretion, exercised, by the Court below, cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same is liable to be upheld. 9. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M- 1019 of 2009, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 12.01.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE