CRM-M-26819 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-26819 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:05.09.2011 Gurpreet Singh . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Anil Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This is a petition for bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.53 dated 28.3.2011 under Sections 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was apprehended with 1100 loose tablets in which the base salt was found to be Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the report of chemical examiner Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride was found to be 2.3 mg per tablet which is less than 2.5 mg and is permissible under the notification of Government of India No.S.O.826(E) dated 14.11.1985. In this regard he has submitted that if the pure drug content is to be seen then the petitioner deserves concession of bail because it does not attract the rigour of Section 37 of the Act. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments of this Court titled as “Sarabjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab” 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 119 and “Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab” 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 907. However, this Court had already taken a view in CRM-M-20589 of 2011 titled as “Gurinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab” decided on 29.8.2011 after taking into consideration the notification No.S.O.2941(E) dated 18.11.2009 CRM-M-26819 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - vide which an amendment has been brought in the notification No.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 and note No.4 has been added in the table according to which the Court is not to see the pure drug content but the entire mixture or solution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that if the entire mixture is to be considered then it comes within commercial quantity. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the present case falls within definition of commercial quantity attracting the provisions of Section 37 of the Act. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 05, 2011 JUDGE Vivek