Crl. Misc. No. M- 1095 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 1095 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: November 28, 2011 Karamjit Singh alias Ghami .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.85, dated 29.06.2010, registered under Sections 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. Prayer is also for quashing of all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Claiming himself to be sole proprietor of M/s Aulakh Medical Hall, the petitioner states that he is running the business of retail Druggist and Chemist. The petitioner further avers that he is authorized to sell stock or exhibit for sale or distribute the whole sale drugs specified in schedule C and C(I) excluding those specified in Crl. Misc. No. M- 1095 of 2011 -2- schedule X of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945. Copy of the licence has been placed on record. The impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioner on 29.6.2010, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-4. Reference is made to Section 2 (XI) (b) of the NDPS Act. In exercise of power conferred under the said Section, the Central Government has declared certain narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and their preparations to be manufacturer drugs vide notification dated 14.11.1985. As per the petitioner, none of the medicine recovered from him falls within the definition of manufacture drugs and all of them fall within the category of Schedule G and H drugs. As per the FIR, following recovery was effected from the petitioner:- “A. Four strips of Spasmo-Proxyvon Capsules B. 8 strips of Hyphodek-10 Capsules C. 39 bottles of Lomtil tablets D. 10 pouch of Phenotil tablets E. 240 strips of Fortadol tablets F. 65 strips of Aldin-0.5 tablets G. 10 strips of Carisoma tablets H. 15 strips of Alto-0.5 tablets I. 40 strips of Attow-2 mg tablets J. 40 strips of Elpra-0.50 tablets K. 30 strips of Atipam-2 tablets L. 28 strips of Avil-25 tablets M. 34 strips of Avil-50 tablets” The recovered drugs were sent for chemical examination. Copy of the report is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5. The ingredients along with their quantities found present in these are given in the form of tables, which according to the petitioner would Crl. Misc. No. M- 1095 of 2011 -3- not reveal any offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No.M-12323 of 2011 (Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab), decided on 18.10.2011, whereby this Court has quashed the FIR, but allowed the prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, on a similar consideration. It may need a notice that the said order was passed by the Court on the basis of a communication(Annexure R-I), which was received from the District Drugs Inspector, Bathinda. It was then noticed that no offence under Section 21 of the NDPS Act would be made out. The proceedings are still pending before the trial Court. If the recovery is of a drug, obviously the Court at the time of framing the charge would consider this aspect. The petitioner can very well raise this plea before the trial Court that no offence under the NDPS Act is made out on the basis of recovery and chemical examination. The trial Court will decide his plea in accordance with law. Quashing of FIR on the basis of averment made in the petition may not be appropriate. The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the pleas before the trial Court. November 28, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE