Criminal Revision No. 274 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 274 of 2004 Date of Decision : 25.5.2011. Sukhdev Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent Present: Mr. D.S. Gurna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Addl. AG, Punjab, assisted by Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Asst. Drug Controller, Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated November 22nd, 2003 passed by Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby, petitioner was ordered to be charged under Section 21 & 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') and was charge-sheeted accordingly. 2. The petitioner owned a medical store in Fatehgarh Sahib. On August 4th, 2003 he was found in possession of the following drugs:- 1. 110 tablets of Hypnotec 2. 270 tablets of Hynodor 3. 260 tablets of Nitrezepam 4. 1040 tablets of Lomotil 5. 4630 tablets of Lomofen 6. 3090 tablets of Microtil 7. 208 capsules of Spasmoproxyvon 8. 150 capsules of Parvon 9. 250 tablets of Nitrazepam 10. 40 injections of Bonorvin 11. 40 injections of Pheniramine maleate 3. The drugs were sent to the Forensic Science Criminal Revision No. 274 of 2004 2 Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh for analysis. It was found containing following ingredients:- Quantity of Parcel No. 1. 2. 3. 4 Buprenorphine Hydrochloride (Average mg/ml) 0.29 Dicyclomine Hydrochloride (Average mg/cap.) 19.3 Paracetamol (Average mg/caps) 498.9 Diazepam (Average mg/tabs) 4.8 Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride (Average mg/cap) 2.3 Atropine Sulphate (do) 0.023 Furazolodine (do) 49.8 4. Learned State counsel has submitted that technical opinion of the Drug Inspector was sought as mentioned in the report of the Review Committee (Annexure P-9) and it was opined that no offence under Section 21 & 22 of the NDPS Act is made out against the petitioner but since the petitioner did not produce documents of sale, purchase etc. so, he committed offence punishable under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 5. Thus, the revision petition is accepted and the order under challenge is set aside. The petitioner stands discharged. However, the prosecution is at liberty to prosecute the petitioner under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 or any other law for the time being in force. 25.5.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE