1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner prays for following reliefs:-

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

3. Seeking quashment of the FIR, learned advocate Mr. V.O. Joshi appearing for the petitioner mainly argued that the petitioner is not involved in the offence. The name of the petitioner surfaced through the statement of the co-accused, which is having no evidentary value, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is residing in Canada since the year 2000 and became the citizen of Canada since year 2003. He is not linked with the offence in any way nor he is found with the conscious possession of the contraband.

3.1 As far as factual aspects of the case are concerned, learned advocate Mr. V.O. Joshi submits that, "Kamini Vidravan Ras", the pills of which are seized by the Police having received secret Page 3 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined information is an ayurvedic medicine and manufactured by Multani Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Delhi under the license given by the Ayush Department of the Union of India. In a pill, opium is used as a medicinal ingredient. As such, the opium found in "Kamini Vidravan Ras" is squarely covered under the explanation and proviso to Section 8C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as " NDPS Act "). Therefore, it cannot be said that the production, possession, use, consumption, purchase, sale, transport, warehousing, import or export is not prohibited. Therefore, putting the petitioner to the accusation under the " NDPS Act " for the ayurvedic medicine "Kamini Vidravan Ras" is totally impermissible.

3.2 Learned advocate Mr. V.O. Joshi also submits that the "Kamini Vidravan Ras" is openly available in the market as an over-the-counter medicine. It can be purchased by any person without any prescription since it is an ayurvedic medicine, which is essentially used for the treatment of premature ejaculation, impotency and loss of libido. This drug can be used and consumed in a dose of 125-250 mg twice a day and it is approved by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy i.e. Ayush, New Delhi. It consists of several Ayurvedic medicinal ingredients, and therefore, use of opium or its derivative in the drug itself cannot be held to be contravention of the provisions of the " NDPS Act ".

3.3 He would further submit that as per the Ayurvedic preparation, for manufacturing the "Kamini Vidravan Ras" along Page 4 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined with other 11 ingredients, one of the essential ingredient is Papaver Somniferum i.e. Opium. The Ayush Department has permitted to manufacture such drug. License has been given to the Multani Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and since there is no ban of any storage, selling of such drug, recovery of such "Kamini Vidravan Ras" from the conscious possession of the accused by itself cannot be treated as an offence under the " NDPS Act ".

3.4 It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that other capsules recovered during the raid, which have been found containing Tramadol, is not included in the Schedule-I of the " NDPS Act " & Schedule-I & II of the Rules under the " NDPS Act ". Therefore, Tramadol cannot be considered as a contraband substance under the " NDPS Act ".

3.5 In the conspectus of aforesaid arguments, learned advocate Mr. V.O. Joshi submits that what could be found against the petitioner is just an export of "Kamini Vidravan Ras" under the label of "Hajmola candy" without the license to export the said product. However, that aspects cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the " NDPS Act ". He would also submit that exporting ayurvedic medicine under misbranding and without license at the most attracts breach of provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1940") and thus, petitioner cannot be prosecuted for offence under the " NDPS Act ".

3.6 Learned advocate Mr. V.O. Joshi refers to the interim order passed by the coordinate Bench dated 02.05.2022 and submitted that the coordinate Bench has recorded the submission of the petitioner and was satisfied to pass order for Page 5 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined interim relief. At that time, the coordinate Bench also raised the concern that the FIR under the provisions of the " NDPS Act "

4.1 He would further submit that the coordinate Bench also declined to entertain the argument that at the most it is an offence under the "Act of 1940" for misbranding. He would further submit that while passing a judgment in Mayank Girishbhai Shah (Supra), the coordinate Bench has taken assistance from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Rajkumar Arora and others , reported in 2025 INSC 498, whereby the Supreme Court vividly and comprehensively discussed the issue that whether production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consumption, import into India, Page 6 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined export from India or transshipment of which is listed in the " NDPS Act " but not mentioned in Schedule-I of the Rules under the " NDPS Act " would constitute an offence under Section 8(c) of the " NDPS Act " and declined to discharge the accused.

4.2 Learned APP submitted that the reasons assigned by the coordinate Bench of this Court pari passu applies to the facts of the case as alleged medicinal product is one and same i.e. "Kamini Vidravan Ras".

4.3 It is also argued by the learned APP that the challenge to the FIR has been made at the nascent stage. Investigation against the present petitioner is not calling interference at this stage. The Court, therefore, should not exercise the inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR at a nascent stage. The power to quash the FIR can be exercised sparingly.

4.4 He would further submit that the statement of the co- accused is sufficient material and providing a lead in the investigation. He would further submit that the investigation carried against other accused indicates that other material on record are available involving the present petitioner. Thus, this Court, at this juncture, should not quash the FIR appreciating evidentary value of material collected during investigation holding mini-trial 4.5 He would further submit that the co-accused in whose statement the name of the present petitioner is disclosed, is his real brother, and therefore, looking at all the aspects, this Court may not quash the FIR. In the above submission, learned APP submitted to dismiss this petition.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined

5. Regard being held to the rival submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for both the sides and also application of mind to the material placed on record. At the outset, it is to be noted that petitioner has approached this Court for quashment of the FIR no sooner the FIR is registered with the Bharuch Rural Police Station, impugned in this petition in relation to the offence under Sections 8(c) , 18(b) , 20(c) , 21(c) , 23(c) , 25 , 29 and 60(1)(2)(3) of the " NDPS Act ".

5.1 According to the FIR and the report tendered by the learned APP, after receiving the secret information, officers of the Baruch Police raided the premises of accused No.3 - Rizwan Ishak Musa Patel, whereby total 4.866 Kgs pills of "Kamini Vidravan Ras" and 265 Gms of the other capsules were found from the conscious possession of accused No.3. Accused No.4 - Rahulkumar Parmar is also found there. Prima-facie FSL assessment of those pills and capsules resulted into revealing it to be narco-psychotropic substance. During the investigation, it is found that those accused were without any license exporting the said drugs to the present petitioner at Canada under the label of "Hajmola candy". Bottles with the labels were found with the conscious possession of the accused No. 3 and 4 and same parcels were found from the courier office and post office, which were deposited by the accused - Rizwan.

5.2 In this factual aspects, if we examine the argument of learned advocate Mr. V.O. Joshi seeking quashment of the FIR. Firstly, he submitted that the name of the present petitioner reveals from the statement of the co-accused having no Page 8 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined evidentary value. However, it is to be noted that investigation into the offence against the petitioner is still going on. The charge-sheet has been filed only against the other accused. The statement of the co-accused has relevancy and is important material which can provide lead to the further investigation of the offence. It is true that the evidentiary value of the statement of the co-accused is none. However, the stage would come when trial of the offence is going on and examination of the evidentiary value of the co-accused is carried out. The statement of the co- accused cannot be considered at the stage of the trial. During the investigation of an offence, the statement of the co-accused can become material and provide a lead in the investigation. Therefore, the statement of the co-accused cannot be brushed aside at the time of investigation that it has no evidentiary value. Moreover, if we see the charge-sheet papers filed against the other accused, there appears series of statements of the witnesses, which states that the other accused have booked the parcels with the courier and post office for exporting the "Kamini Vidravan Ras" to Canada on the address of the petitioner under the label of "Hajmola candy" without having any license. The petitioner did not come out with the case that why his name is surfaced in the parcel and courier as a recipient. Thus, prima- facie, there is material against the petitioner that he is involved in the trafficking of the "Kamini Vidravan Ras". Moreover, the name of the petitioner surfaced from the statement of very Rizwan Ishaq Bhai Musa Patel, who is real brother of the present petitioner and he has no reason to say a lie. Moreover, this Court cannot examine the veracity of the statement or find it to be true or false at this juncture. For the aforesaid reasons, the first Page 9 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined submission of the learned advocate Mr. V.O. Joshi is found with no substance and accordingly, it is rejected.

5.3 The second substantive argument of learned advocate Mr. V.O. Joshi that since manufacture, possession, consumption, sale, transport, warehouse, etc. include import and export both in the State and in the country or transshipment is permitted, as '"Kamini Vidravan Ras"' is manufactured under the license given by Ayush, New Delhi i.e. a Government Department and the use of opium in manufacture of the "Kamini Vidravan Ras" is permitted by the license and used in permissible limit, it cannot be considered as a psychotropic substance within the meaning of the " NDPS Act ". As such, no offence under section 8(c) of the " NDPS Act " is constituted is concerned, the report tendered by the Investigating Officer indicates that the presence of the Anhydrous Morphine is found from the "Kamini Vidravan Ras"

(xv) "opium" means--

(a) the coagulated juice of the opium poppy; and

(b) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy, but does not include any preparation containing not more than 0.2 per cent. of morphine;

(xvi) "opium derivative" means--

(a) medicinal opium, that is, opium which has undergone the processes necessary to adapt it for medicinal use in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Pharmacopoeia or any other pharmacopoeia notified in this behalf by the Central Government, whether in powder form or granulated or otherwise or mixed with neutral materials;

(b) prepared opium, that is, any product of opium obtained by any series of operations designed to transform opium into an extract suitable for smoking and the dross or other residue remaining after opium is smoked;

(c) phenanthrene alkaloids, namely, morphine, codeine, thebaine and their salts;

(d) diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also known as dia-morphine or heroin and its salts; and

(e) all preparations containing more than 0.2 per cent. of morphine or containing any diacetylmorphine;"

5.5 The Coordinate Bench while deciding the issue in Mayank Girishbhai Shah (Supra) has taken the assistance from the Page 11 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined judgment of Director of Revenue Intelligence (Supra). In para 38 in case of Director of Revenue Intelligence (Supra), the Supreme Court framed Three issues for determination. Issue No.I framed by the Honourable Apex Court is material to decide this petition which reads as under:-

5.6 After examining the object of the " NDPS Act " and the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971, Supreme Court referred to the judgment of State of Rajasthan v. Udai Lal . reported in (2008) 11 SCC 408, which held that, the " NDPS Act " is a special Act, which has been enunciated with a view to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotics, drugs and psychotropic substances and held as thus:-

A bare reading of the definition would indicate that all items listed in the Schedule to the Act along with its salts and preparations come within the purview of a "psychotropic substance" under the NDPS Act .

53. Section 8 of the NDPS Act prohibits certain operations and reads as thus: 8. Prohibition of certain operations.-- No person shall -

(a) cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant; or

(b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or

(c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter- State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation:

54. The mandate under Section 8 is that no person shall produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter- State, import into India, export from India or tranship (hereinafter collectively referred to as "deal in/dealing in") any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder. In a case where any such provision imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation, the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances must also be dealt in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation. The term "psychotropic substance" mentioned in Section 8 must be seen in light of Section 2(xxiii) which refers to the Schedule to the Act and all the psychotropic substances mentioned therein. Additionally, to bring a case within the exception carved out under Section 8 , each of the conditions specified therein must be satisfied. In other words, for the accused to take the plea that his dealing in the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance does not constitute an offence under Section 8 , it must be proved that the drug or substance was being dealt with (a) for medical or scientific purposes AND; (b) in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of the NDPS Act or the NDPS Rules or the orders made thereunder AND; (c) in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence, permit or authorisation, if any.

55. It is just not enough to prove or establish that the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is capable of being used for a medical or scientific purpose. That would give unnecessary leeway to persons to indiscriminately deal with narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances under the garb that they could also be potentially used for medical or scientific purposes. Moreover, several of these drugs and substances are inherently of such a nature that they have widespread medicinal and scientific applications. Therefore, an expansive interpretation of the exception that the mere Page 16 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined potential for usage of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance ,for medical or scientific purpose, is sufficient would run counter to the object of the Act which seeks to act as a deterrent to the widespread dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. What must, therefore, be proved to take the benefit of the exception is that the narcotic drug or psychotropic substances was being dealt in for a specified and real medical or scientific purpose, in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of the Act, the rules and orders made thereunder and, in case such provisions imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation, in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation.

56. Therefore, if any psychotropic substance mentioned in the Schedule to the Act is being dealt with for a purpose other than medical or scientific purposes, an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act would be made out. Furthermore, if any psychotropic substance mentioned in the Schedule to the Act is being dealt with for a medical or scientific purpose, but not in accordance with other provisions of the Act, rules, orders or, the terms and conditions of the licence, permit or authorisations, if any, then also, an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act could be said to have been made out. It is only when the exception is complied with entirely or wholly, that an accused can lay claim to the benefit provided under the said provision.

57. Section 9 of the NDPS Act empowers the Central Government to permit and regulate certain activities subject to the provisions of Section 8 . The same reads thus:

58. Section 76 of the NDPS Act also empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the NDPS Act and reads thus:

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined xxx xxx xxx

(h) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed."

59. The NDPS Rules, 1985, have been brought into being by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Sections 9 and 76 of the NDPS Act, respectively referred to above . However, what must necessarily be kept in mind is that the power conferred upon the Central Government under Sections 9 and 76 of the NDPS Act, respectively, is subject to Section 8 and this is evident by the use of the phrase "subject to the provisions of Section 8 " and "subject to the other provisions of the Act" in both the provisions. Therefore, the NDPS rules must not be understood as laying down standards different from or inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the NDPS Act , especially Section 8 and the Schedule to the NDPS Act . The underlying object of the NDPS rules is to "permit and regulate" certain activities for carrying out the purposes of the NDPS Act and not to "prohibit" those activities.

60. Rule 2(k) of the NDPS Rules, 1985, states that - "words and expressions used herein and not defined, but defined in the Act shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Act.". Therefore, any reference to "psychotropic substances" under the NDPS Rules must relate to the definition provided under Section 2(xxiii) of the NDPS Act, which consists of the entire list of psychotropic substances enumerated under the Schedule to the Act . Chapter VI of the NDPS rules relate to the import, export and transhipment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and Chapter VII deals with the manufacture, sale, purchase, consumption, use, possession and transport of psychotropic substances. Chapter VIIA details certain special provisions regarding the manufacture, possession, transport, import-export, purchase and consumption of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for medical, scientific and training purposes. It would be apposite to mention at this stage that the NDPS rules have undergone some significant changes over the years. However, our inquiry would be limited to the version of the NDPS Rules as it existed during the time the offence is alleged to have been committed in the present case i.e., as on 27.09.2003.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined

61. Chapters VI and VII respectively, contain Rules 53 to 63 and 64 to 67 respectively. Under Chapter VI, Rule 53 provides for a general prohibition and states that subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, the import into and export out of India of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances specified in "Schedule I appended to the Rules"

mentioned in the proviso must naturally be read to mean a "Schedule I substance" since the language of Rule 53 is phrased such that it alludes to a Schedule I substance only. Therefore, in short, the import and export of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances specifically mentioned under Schedule I of the Rules is generally disallowed provided that person may import and export them, with a valid import certificate or export authorisation, for the limited purposes mentioned under Chapter VIIA.

62. Rule 55 on the 'Application for an Import Certificate' provides that, subject to Rule 53 as enumerated above, no narcotic drug or psychotropic substance specified in the " Schedule of the Act " shall be imported into India without an import certificate, in respect of the consignment, issued by the issuing authority, as per the form appended to the Rules. Rule 57 on 'Transit' states that subject to the provisions of Section 79 of the NDPS Act and Rule 53, no consignment of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance specified in the " Schedule of the Act " shall be allowed to be transited through India unless such consignment is accompanied by a valid export authorisation in this behalf issued by the Government of the exporting country. Rule 58 relating to the 'Application for Export Authorisation' provides that, subject to Rules 53 and 53A, no narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances specified in the " Schedule of the Act " shall be exported out of India without an export authorisation in respect of the consignment, issued by the issuing authority in the requisite form appended to the Rules. Rule 60 relating Page 20 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined to 'Transhipment' provides that, subject to the provisions of Section 79 of the NDPS Act and Rule 53, no consignment of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance specified in the " Schedule to the Act " shall be allowed to be transhipped at any port in India save with the permission of the Collector of Customs. Rule 61 on the 'Procedure for Transhipment' states that while allowing any consignment of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance specified in the " Schedule to the Act "

63. What is discernible from the aforementioned rules under Chapter VI is that the import into and export out of India of all psychotropic substances (as listed in the Schedule to the Act ) must be accompanied by a valid import certificate and export authorisation issued by the issuing authority in India. As regards the transit and transhipment of any psychotropic substance (as listed in the Schedule to the Act ) in India, a valid export authorisation issued by the exporting country is a requisite. On the other hand, what Rule 53 seeks to achieve is to restrict the import and export of substances enumerated in Schedule I of the Rules to a pre-determined set of purposes as explained under Chapter VIIA, despite having obtained an import certificate or export authorisation under the other rules of this Chapter. This provision i.e., Rule 53 relating to the Schedule I substances must not be flouted and this is especially evident through the phrase "subject to Rule 53" featuring in almost every rule under this Chapter. It is therefore, clear that, as far as import or export is concerned, the substances mentioned in Schedule I appended to the Rules are more strictly regulated or restricted in comparison to the larger list of psychotropic substances mentioned in the Schedule to the Act . However, this is not to say that the psychotropic substances mentioned only in the Schedule to the Act are unregulated. Furthermore, it also cannot be said that the substances mentioned in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules are absolutely prohibited from being imported or exported as per Section 8 of the NDPS Act since they are clearly allowed to be validly imported and exported for the limited purposes enumerated under Chapter VIIA.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined 64 xxx xxx xxx

65. What can be discerned from the Rules 64 and 65 respectively, elaborated hereinabove is that: First, the manufacture of all psychotropic substances (as listed in the Schedule to the Act ) must be in accordance with the conditions prescribed in the licence granted under the D&C Rules and the permissible quantity to be manufactured would be intimated to the licensee at the time the licence is issued. Notwithstanding the prohibition to deal in psychotropic substances contained in Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, the manufacture thereof is permitted subject to compliance with the D&C Act and its Rules. Secondly, there is a general rule absolutely prohibiting the manufacture, possession, transport, import inter-State, export inter-State, sale, purchase, consumption or use of any of the psychotropic substances which find mention in Schedule I appended to the Rules. However, the above activities can be done vis-á-vis the substances mentioned in Schedule I appended to the Rules if their manufacture, possession, transport, import inter-State, export inter-State, sale, purchase, consumption or use is in accordance with other provisions of the Chapter which generally apply to all psychotropic substances (as listed in the Schedule to the Act ) and for the limited purposes mentioned under Chapter VIIA. In other words, Schedule I substances can also be dealt in, in due compliance with the rules applicable generally to all the psychotropic substances but specifically only for the purposes mentioned under Chapter VIIA. However, while issuing a licence of manufacture with respect to the Schedule I substances, the Licensing Authority shall consult the Narcotics Commissioner. Therefore, Rules 64 and 65 respectively, permit the manufacture of psychotropic substances mentioned under Schedule I of the Rules however subject to certain provisions and purposes. This can be culled out from a holistic reading of Rules 64 and 65 respectively, and the two provisos which follow Rule 65(3). Thirdly, the manufacture of all psychotropic substances (as listed in the Schedule to the Act ), and those mentioned under Schedule I of the Rules specifically for the purposes elaborated under Chapter VIIA, in violation of the conditions of licence of manufacture issued under the D&C Act would amount to a contravention of Rule 65 of the NDPS Rules and Page 22 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined thereby Section 8 of the NDPS Act itself. Therefore, when such a contravention of the conditions of licence occurs, it cannot be said that an offence under the NDPS Act would not be made out and that the contravention would be solely covered by the D&C regime. Due to the operation of Rule 65, violation of any of the conditions of licence under the D&C Act read with its Rules would ipso facto tantamount to a violation of the NDPS Act read with its Rules as well.

66. Rule 66 on 'Possession etc. of psychotropic substances' states that no person shall possess any psychotropic substance (as listed in the Schedule to the Act ) for any of the purposes covered by the D&C Rules, unless he is lawfully authorised to possess such substance for any of the said purposes under these rules. Therefore, what is being conveyed herein is that as far as substances mentioned under Schedule I are concerned, they can be possessed only for the purposes mentioned under Chapter VIIA, and as far as the other substances not being Schedule I substances but which are listed in the Schedule to the Act are concerned, they can be possessed for the purposes mentioned under Chapter VIIA and also for other purposes which necessarily fall under the broader considerations of medical or scientific purposes as mentioned under Section 8 of the NDPS Act. This compliance is in addition to the accused persons possessing the said substances in accordance with the purposes elaborated under the D&C Rules and the requirements thereunder. Sub-rule (2), however, allows any research institution or a hospital or a dispensary maintained or supported by the Government or local body or by charity or voluntary subscription, which is not normally authorised to possess the psychotropic substances under the D&C Rules, or any person who is not so authorised under the D&C Rules, to possess a reasonable quantity of such substance as may be necessary for their genuine scientific or medical requirements or both, for such period as is deemed necessary by the said research institution or hospital or dispensary or person, as the case may be. In case, of an individual person, possessing the substance for his personal medical use, the quantity shall not exceed one 100 dosage units at a time. The research institution, hospital and dispensary referred to herein shall maintain proper accounts and records in relation to the purchase and Page 23 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined consumption of the psychotropic substance in their possession.

67. Rule 67 on 'Transport of psychotropic substance' provides that, subject to the provisions of Rule 64, no consignment of psychotropic substance shall be transported, imported inter-State or exported inter-State unless such a consignment is accompanied by a consignment note appended to the Rules and in the manner provided under the Rules. The consignor and consignee must keep the consignment note for a period of two years and the said note may be inspected at any time by an officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government. This Rule would again apply to all psychotropic substances (as mentioned under the Schedule to the Act ).

68. At this stage, it may be observed that it was vide a notification dated 25th June, 1997 that Chapter VIIA containing Rule 67A came to be inserted in the NDPS Rules. Chapter VIIA states that, notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of these Rules, a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance may be used for - (i) scientific requirements including analytical requirements of any Government laboratory or any research institution in India or abroad; or (ii) very limited medical requirements of a foreigner by a duly authorised person of a hospital or any other establishment of the Government especially approved by that foreign Government; or (iii) the purpose of de- addiction of drug addicts by the Government or local body or by an approved charity or voluntary organisation or by such other institution as may be approved by the Central Government. The persons performing medical or scientific functions as mentioned hereinabove shall maintain records concerning the acquisition of the substance and the details of their use in Form 7 of these rules and such records are to be preserved for at least two years. Furthermore, a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance may be supplied or dispensed for use to a foreigner pursuant to a medical prescription only from authorised licensed pharmacists or other authorised retail distributors designated by authorities responsible for public health.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined

69. Upon a meticulous analysis of the NDPS rules relating to psychotropic substances and analysing the purposes for which they are to be dealt in, along with the requirements and procedures to be complied with for each kind of dealing in the psychotropic substances, an underlying idea resonates throughout these rules i.e., that any dealing in the psychotropic substances mentioned under Schedule I of the Rules must strictly be in accordance with the NDPS Rules AND ONLY for the purposes enumerated under Chapter VIIA of the NDPS Rules. The substances not finding a mention under Schedule I of the Rules but listed in the Schedule to the Act must also meet with the requirements cast upon by the NDPS Rules. The difference as regards these substances however is that while they may be dealt with for the purposes enumerated under Chapter VIIA of the NDPS Rules, they can also be dealt with for other purposes, provided that those purposes strictly fall under the larger umbrella of "medical or scientific purposes" as provided for in Section 8 of the NDPS Act. Whether the accused has dealt with it within the confines of the expression "medical or scientific purposes" must obviously be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. It can therefore be said that the substances under Schedule I to the Rules are more strictly restricted compared to the remaining psychotropic substances under the Schedule to the Act which are restricted more moderately in comparison. On this aspect, our scheme is more or less similar to the scheme of the Convention on Psychotropic substances, 1971. The different levels in restriction could be seen as the primary reason behind providing two different schedules, i.e., one under the Act and another under the Rules. Moreover, the Schedule to the Act can be considered as a superset of all psychotropic substances wherein those substances mentioned under Schedule I of the Rules form a small, more restricted subset of the larger superset.

xxx xxx xxx

78. A three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Another v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande reported in (2014) 13 SCC 1 related to a batch of matters, all pertaining to prosecutions under the provisions of the NDPS Act wherein each one of the accused was alleged to have been Page 25 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined in possession of a psychotropic substance only mentioned under the Schedule to the Act . In some of the cases bail was granted by the concerned High Court and in few others, bail was denied. This Court examined the legality of the conclusion that the absence of mention of a particular psychotropic substance in Schedule I to the Rules excludes the application of Section 8 , notwithstanding the fact that such a drug is included in the Schedule to the Act .

i. First, this Court in its decision analysed the true scope and ambit of Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act and stated that Section 8(c) in no uncertain terms prohibits the dealing in any manner in any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. However, an exception to such prohibition is also contained in the said section and that is, that the dealing in any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance would be permitted "in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the Rules or Orders made thereunder". Therefore, it was declared that a twin condition must be fulfilled i.e., the dealing must be for medical or scientific purposes AND in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of the Act, Rules, or Orders made thereunder and the Court stated as thus:

The exception being that dealing in any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is permitted "in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the Rules or Orders made thereunder".

25. In other words, dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is permissible only when such dealing is for medical purposes or scientific purposes. Further, the mere fact that the dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is for a medical or scientific purpose does not by itself lift the embargo created under Section 8(c) . Such a dealing must be in the manner and extent provided by the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders made thereunder [...]" (Emphasis supplied) ii. Secondly, it was opined that Sections 9 and 10 of the NDPS Act respectively, enable the Central and State Governments respectively, to frame rules to "permit and regulate" various aspects contemplated under Section 8(c) of dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It was clarified that the Act does not contemplate the framing of rules for "prohibiting" various activities of dealing in the same since such a prohibition is already present under Section 8(c) . Therefore, it cannot be said that the prohibition contained under Section 8 would not be attracted in respect of all those psychotropic substances which find a mention only in the Schedule to the Act but not in Schedule I to the Rules framed under the Act. The relevant observations are as thus:

Such a conclusion was reached in Rajesh Kumar Gupta case [ State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta , (2007) 1 SCC 355 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] on the understanding that Rule 53 (prohibiting the import into and export out of India of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I to the Rules) is the source of the authority for such prohibition. Such a conclusion was drawn from the fact that the other Rules contained in the Chapter permit import into and export out of India of certain narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances other than those specified in Schedule I to the Rules. Unfortunately, the learned Judges in reaching such a conclusion ignored the mandate of Section 8(c) which inter alia prohibits in absolute terms import into and export out of India of any narcotic drug and psychotropic substance. Rules framed under the Act cannot be understood to create rights and obligations contrary to those contained in the parent Act.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined

30. On examination of the scheme of Rules 53 to 63 which appear in Chapter VI, we are of the opinion that Rule 53 [ "53.General prohibition.-- Subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, the import into and export out of India of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I is prohibited: Provided that nothing in this rule shall respectively, wherein those two rules pertain to a list of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which cannot be dealt with in any manner notwithstanding the other provisions of these two chapters. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow: 29. We are unable to agree with the conclusion (reached in Rajesh Kumar Gupta case [ State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta , (2007) 1 SCC 355 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] ) that the prohibition contained in Rule 63 [ "63.Prohibition of import and export of consignments through a post office box, etc.--The import or export of consignments of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance through a post office box or through a bank is prohibited."] of the 1985 Rules is applicable only to those narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which are mentioned in Schedule I to the Rules and not to the psychotropic substances enumerated in the Schedule to the Act . Such a conclusion was reached in Rajesh Kumar Gupta case [ State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta , (2007) 1 SCC 355 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] on the understanding that Rule 53 (prohibiting the import into and export out of India of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I to the Rules) is the source of the authority for such prohibition. Such a conclusion was drawn from the fact that the other Rules contained in the Chapter permit import into and export out of India of certain narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances other than those specified in Schedule I to the Rules. Unfortunately, the learned Judges in reaching such a conclusion ignored the mandate of Section 8(c) which inter alia prohibits in absolute terms import into and export out of India of any narcotic drug Page 30 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined and psychotropic substance. Rules framed under the Act cannot be understood to create rights and obligations contrary to those contained in the parent Act. 30. On examination of the scheme of Rules 53 to 63 which appear in Chapter VI, we are of the opinion that Rule 53 [ "53.General prohibition.--Subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, the import into and export out of India of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I is prohibited: Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply in case the drug substance is imported into or exported out of India subject to an import certificate or export authorisation issued under the provision of this Chapter and for the purposes mentioned in Chapter VII-A."] reiterates an aspect of the larger prohibition contained in Section 8(c) i.e. the prohibition of import into and export out of India of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I to the Rules. The proviso thereto however enables the import into and export out of India on the basis of an import certificate or export authorisation issued under the provisions of Chapter VI. The subsequent rules stipulate the conditions subject to which and the procedure to be followed by which some of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances could be imported into India or exported out of India. For example, opium is a narcotic drug by definition under Section 2(xiv) of the Act whose export and import is prohibited under Section 8(c) . But Rule 54 [ "54.Import of opium, etc.--The import of--(i) opium, concentrate of poppy straw, and(ii) morphine, codeine, thebaine, and their salts is prohibited save by the Government Opium Factory; Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to import of morphine, codeine, thebaine and their salts by manufacturers notified by the Government, for use in manufacture of products to be exported or to imports of small quantities of morphine, codeine and thebaine and their salts not exceeding a total of 1 kilogram during a calendar year for analytical purposes by an importer, after following the procedure under Page 31 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined Rule 55 and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the import certificate issued in Form 4A."(emphasis supplied)] authorises the import of opium by the Government opium factory. The construction such as the one placed on Rule 53 in Rajesh Kumar Gupta case [ State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta , (2007) 1 SCC 355 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] would in our opinion be wholly against the settled canons of statutory interpretation that the subordinate legislation cannot make stipulation contrary to the parent Act.

31. Chapter VII deals with psychotropic substances. No doubt Rule 64 [ "64.General prohibition.--No person shall manufacture, possess, transport, import inter-State, export inter- State, sell, purchase, consume or use any of the psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I."] once again purports to prohibit various operations other than import into or export out of India in psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I for the obvious reason that import and export operations are already covered by Rule 53. Rule 65 authorises the manufacture of psychotropic substances other than those specified in Schedule I to the Rules subject to and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted under the 1945 Rules. The rule also provides for various other incidental matters. Rule 65-A prohibits the sale, purchase, consumption or use of any psychotropic substances except in accordance with the 1945 Rules.

32. Rule 66 prohibits any person from having in possession any psychotropic substance even for any of the purposes authorised under the 1945 Rules unless the person in possession of such a psychotropic substance is lawfully authorised to possess such substance for any of the purposes mentioned under the 1985 Rules. Persons who are authorised under the 1985 Rules, and the quantities of the material such persons are authorised to possess, are specified under Rule Page 32 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined 66(2). They are: (1) any research institution or a hospital or dispensary maintained or supported by the Government, etc. -- Rule 66(2). (2) individuals where such possession is needed for personal medical use subject of course to the limits and conditions specified -- the two provisos to Rule 66(2).

33. Rule 66 reads as follows:

34. On the above analysis of the provisions of Chapters VI and VII of the 1985 Rules, we are of the opinion, both these chapters contain rules permitting and regulating the import and export of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances other than those specified in Schedule I to the 1985 Rules subject to various conditions and procedure stipulated in Chapter VI. Whereas Chapter VII deals exclusively with various other aspects of dealing in psychotropic substances and the conditions subject to which such dealing in is permitted. We are of the opinion that both Rules 53 and 64 are really in the nature of exception to the general scheme of Chapters VI and VII respectively containing a list of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which cannot be dealt in any manner notwithstanding the other provisions of these two chapters. We are of the clear opinion that neither Rule 53 nor Rule 64 is a source of authority for prohibiting the dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the source is Section 8 . Rajesh Kumar Gupta case [ State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta , (2007) 1 SCC 355 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] in our view is wrongly decided." (Emphasis supplied).

xxx xxx xxx

81. However, a detailed and comprehensive analysis of Chapters VI and VII of the NDPS Rules, inter alia, makes it clear that the substances mentioned under Schedule I of the Rules are not absolutely prohibited to be dealt in, as stated in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra). They are indeed allowed to be dealt with for the limited purposes as detailed in Chapter VIIA of the NDPS Rules. It goes without saying that in such dealing for the purposes mentioned under Chapter VIIA, persons would have to comply with the set of procedures and conditions to which the other substances are subjected to and strict compliance of all those rules are mandatory considering the high degree of havoc and menace that the substances mentioned in Schedule I to the Page 34 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined NDPS Rules can create on public health and societal well- being.

xxx xxx xxx

85. In our opinion the pith and substance of the rules essentially remained the same over the years, more particularly pre and post 25.03.2015. It is only the language that has been streamlined in a much more organised manner. Of course, the interpretation of the three-Judge Bench in Sanjeev V Deshpande (supra) of the scheme of Chapters VI and VII of the NDPS Rules respectively would hold the field in so far as the version of the NDPS Rules pre- 25.03.2015 is concerned. Judicial propriety demands that we refrain from substituting our own conclusions to the said decision . However, since the rephrasing of the language and re-shuffling of the sub-rules vide G.S.R. 224(E) dated 25.03.2015 has clarified the true purport and intention behind the framing of the NDPS Rules, there remains no doubt in our mind that the law post - 25.03.2015 is crystal clear in itself. "

Whether the accused has dealt with it within the confines of the expression "medical or scientific purposes" would be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case.

ix. Therefore, the substances under Schedule I to the Rules are more strictly restricted and the remaining psychotropic substances under the Schedule to the Act are more leniently restricted. The different levels in restriction could be seen as the primary reason behind providing two different schedules, i.e., one under the Act and another under the Rules.

x. Several decisions of this Court including Hussain (supra), Ouseph alias Thankachan (supra), Ravindran alias John (supra), Sanjay Kumar Kedia (supra), D. Ramakrishnan (supra) and Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) have held that an offence under Section 8 of the NDPS Act can be made out even in respect of substances only mentioned under the Schedule to the NDPS Act and absent under Schedule I of the NDPS Rules. The outlier amongst these decisions was Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) which was subsequently overruled in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra).

xi. To say that no offence would be made out in a case where an accused deals with a substance mentioned only under the Schedule to the Act , would have the consequence of rendering the entire Schedule to the Act useless, unnecessary and nugatory.

xii. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) assumed that the prohibitory power could only be traced to Rules 53 and 64 of the NDPS Rules respectively, and stated that Rules 53 and 64 of the NDPS Rules respectively, were a genus and the other rules following in their respective Chapters were species thereof. Therefore, since Rules 53 and 64 respectively, only related to the substances listed under Schedule I of the Rules, it was held that the dealing in of Page 38 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined substances not finding a mention in Schedule I of the Rules and only listed under the Schedule to the Act , would be unregulated by the Rules and thus, would not amount to an offence under Section 8(c) .

xiii. On the other hand, Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) overruled Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) by explaining that it is Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act which prohibits various activities with respect to psychotropic substances and the source of this prohibitory power cannot be attributed to Rules 53 and 64 respectively. Rules 53 and 64 are in the nature of an exception to the general scheme of the NDPS Rules. While Rules 53 and 64 state that the substances under Schedule I of the Rules cannot be dealt with in any manner, the other substances i.e., those mentioned under the Schedule to the Act , are also regulated under the other rules in the respective Chapters of the NDPS Rules.

xiv. However, what we understand as also being the essence of the scheme of the NDPS Rules is that, it does not absolutely prohibit the dealing in of the substances mentioned under Schedule I of the Rules as held in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra). These substances figuring in Schedule I of the Rules can also be dealt with but only for the limited purposes mentioned under Chapter VIIA of the NDPS Rules. This is evident from the re-phrasing of the NDPS Rules which was effected on 25.03.2015, which according to us, has not changed the meaning of the Rules but only altered its language.

xv. Section 80 states that the provisions of the NDPS Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the D&C Act and the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, when an offence under the D&C Act is made out or can potentially be made out, the accused can also be charged or prosecuted for an offence under the NDPS Act or vice-versa. The object sought to be achieved under both the legislations is also distinct i.e. the NDPS Act is a special law enacted to regulate the operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances with a view to curb and penalise the usage of drugs by persons for intoxication etc., whereas the D&C Act was enacted to prevent substandard, adulterated and spurious drugs from Page 39 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined entering the medical market and to maintain high standards in medical treatment. Hence, offences under both the enactments can also be said to have been constituted simultaneously, where the circumstances so require."

In view of above detailed discussion and applying the law laid down by the Apex Court, since in the present case, Anhydrous Morphine as well as opium derivatives are found from the "Kamini Vidravan Ras" and as held by the Coordinate Bench of the Court in the case of Mayank Girishbhai Shah (Supra), "Kamini Vidravan Ras" contains the opium derivatives, prima- facie indicates that the sale, transport, warehousing, etc. of such drug within State of Gujarat prima-facie attracts the offence under Section 8(c) of the " NDPS Act ", this Court finds no reason to deviate from such finding and observation of the Coordinate Bench. The scope of exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 is well-defined by a catena of decisions in the cases of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, reported in AIR 1992 SC

604. What could also be noticed that the petitioner seeks to quash the FIR at the nascent stage of investigation. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that power of quashing can be exercised very sparingly and that too in rarest of rare case. Relevant observations reads as under:-

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined 5.10 Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka , reported in (2022) 2 SCC 129, wherein it is observed thus:-

5.11 Lastly, the full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and ors., reported in LiveLaw 2021 SC 211, which has laid down some principal/core issues, which are as under:-

and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to Page 43 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.

xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied. "

itself is a medicinal product, purchased or sold, or imported or exported freely and over the counter, what compelled accused to export under the lable of "Hajmola candy". This aspect remains Page 44 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined unclear and unexplained, as no substantive submission is made by learned advocate for the petitioner. Moreover, no export of such drug is permissible without any license. The statement of witness - Mr. Sanjaykumar, who is the Manager of the Multani Pharmaceuticals substantially states that this medicinal product can be sold only in India, it cannot be exported to any country. Hence, the petitioner could not come out with any case that how this medicinal ayurvedic product was imported by him and exported by his brother from India without any license.

5.13 At the cost of repetition, it can be said that the evidence/material filed in the charge-sheet against other accused indicates that commercial quantity of the "Kamini Vidravan Ras" was attempted to be sent to Canada under the label of "Hajmola candy" through parcel or courier either through Post Department or through some private courier services. Again, no explanation qua the same has been made by the petitioner.

6. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances and considering the submissions made hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to exercise the inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR at the stage of investigation.

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. Interim-relief is vacated. Rule is discharged.

(J. C. DOSHI, J.) Raj Page 45 of 45 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 00:45:29 IST 2025