Jaswant Kaur vs State of Punjab

Paramjeet Singh, J.—The petitioner, who is charged in a case registered against him u/s 21/22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 vide FIR No.373 dated 31.12.2011 registered at Police Station City Barnala, seeks her release on post-arrest bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C., on the ground that the alleged vials recovered from her are manufactured drugs and do not fall within the purview of prohibited substance under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act). As per the allegations in the FIR, 7 litres of intoxicant liquid, which, as per chemical report is a codeine phosphate, has been recovered. Codeine is also a prohibited substance which finds mention at Serial No.28 of the Notification specifying small quantity and commercial quantity, issued u/s 2 of the Act. Entry No.239 in the Notification talks about "any mixture or preparation that of with or without a natural material of any of the drugs" mentioned in the Notification. Thus, codeine phosphate is derivative/preparation of codeine and the liquid recovered from the petitioner is covered under Entry No.28 read with Entry No.239 in the notification.

As per the aforesaid Notification appended with the Act, commercial quantity prescribed for codeine is one kilogram. According to learned counsel, the case is not covered under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, rather, it comes under the purview of Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Per contra, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab has argued that quantity of narcotic substance found in possession of the petitioner, s per the Notification is a "commercial quantity". The petitioner is not having valid permit or licence under the Act or under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The petitioner does not deserve discretionary relief of bail, more so when the quantum of substance recovered, as per the report of the chemical examiner prima facie indicates the nexus of the petitioner with the crime, attracting prohibitory clause, i.e., Section 37 of the Act.

I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the record reveals that 7 litres of intoxicant liquid, which contained codeine phosphate, has been recovered from the petitioner. This Court in Crl. Misc. FM-9327 of 2012 (Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab), decided on 1.6.2012, has held that such case does not only fall under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, rather it is also covered under the Act, as is clear from the reading of Section 80 of the Act. It is not probable that the police will plant such a heavy quantity on the petitioner to falsely implicate her. No specific circumstance has been shown which may indicate that the police has grudge against her. It is unfortunate that woman is being used by the drug peddlers in narcotic business only considering that law has soft corner for them.

Codeine is a narcotic kind of drug which is eroding the foundation of the society and such drugs are used for medicinal or scientific purpose but in the case of the petitioner, it is an abuse of the drug.

Notification dated 18.11.2009 published in the Gazette of India mandates that for computing the quantity of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, purity of the substance is not necessary but the quantum of entire mixture shall be taken into consideration.

In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The observations made herein-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.