CRM No. M 10624 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 10624 of 2010 Date of decision: 02.02.2011 Sat Parkash and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Ms Neelam, AAG, Punjab -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No. 231 dated 07.08.2008 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( for brevity, 'the Act') registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar and all other proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of the Court the order dated 08.04.2010, whereby, the matter in hand was referred to the Committee so constituted by the State to go into allegation contained in the present FIR and see in case any offence under the NDPS Act is made out against the present petitioners. Accordingly, the meeting regarding review of the said case was CRM No. M 10624 of 2010 2 held and the Additional Director General of Police, Crime, Punjab, Chandigarh has forwarded the report furnished by the Deputy Inspector of Police (crime) Punjab Chandigarh. The same was received in the Registry of this Court. As per the same, the chemicals analysis reports reveals as under: “As per Annexure “A” attached with this report.” As per the said report, the technical opinion of Drugs Inspector is as under:- “As per the report of District Drug Inspector Jalandhar (Annexure B) the Drugs Sr. No. 1-5 memo. Are covered at sr. No. 58 & 87 of the Notification No. 826 E dated 14.11.85 as they contain Salt, Diphenoxylate and Dextropropoxyphene and hence not covered under the NDPS Act, 1985 being formulation. The drug Buprenorphine is Psychotropic substance but being schedule H drug formation hence not covered NDPS Act, 1985.” In the said report, it is concluded that “since as per recovery memo, no purchase records were produced by the accused at the time of recovery, so offence is made out under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.” Admittedly, the provisions of NDPS Act are not attracted against the petitioners. Thus, as per the aforesaid report, no offence under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is made out. However, the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 have been violated. This Court, in the case of Johnson and another vs. State of Punjab in Crl. Misc. No.25319-M of 2004 vide Order dated 11.10.2006, in CRM No. M 10624 of 2010 3 similar circumstances, held as under - “ After reviewing the present case, the aforementioned committee concluded that no offence under NDPS Act was made out and the allegations disclosed commission of offence under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act only. The conclusion of the Committee in respect of the present case is reproduced here-in-below:- “ Do not attract the provision of NDPS Act 1985 because psychotropic substance salts are not found in recovered medicines. Accused deserved to be charge under Drug & Cosmetic Act, 1940. Recommended for cancellation.” As a result of above, I hold that no offence under the provisions of NDPS Act is made out against the petitioners. The prosecution allegation disclose commission of an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act. However, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act on the basis of FIR as only a complaint by the Drugs Inspector was competent for initiating action against the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of that Act.” In another case of Pawan Kumar and another vs. State of Punjab (CRR No.165 of 2009, decided on 28.01.2010), this Court allowed the revision petition by holding as under :- “In view of the recommendations of the Committee and above discussion, the petitioner can be prosecuted only under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.11.2008 (Annexure P- 1) passed by the Special Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali whereby the petitioners have been charged for offences CRM No. M 10624 of 2010 4 under Sections 22/61/85 of NDPS Act in consequence of FIR No.243 dated 12.08.2008 registered at Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar, is quashed. However, the State is at liberty to proceed against the petitioners under the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act.” Thus, in view of the recommendations of the Committee and above discussion, no offence under the provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is made out against the petitioner. The prosecution allegation discloses commission of an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Accordingly, the present petition is accepted and the proceedings launched against the petitioner under the provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by way of registration of the said FIR are quashed. However, the concerned Drug Inspector is at liberty to proceed against the petitioners under the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act by filing a criminal complaint, if so advised. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 02.02.2011 mohan CRM No. M 10624 of 2010 5