Navdeep Kumar vs State of Punjab

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—The petitioner, who is confined in District Jail, Ferozepur, in FIR No. 371 dated 14.11.2013 u/s 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the 1985 Act) and Sections 18(a) and 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, the 1940 Act) registered at Police Station, City Ferozepur has sought regular bail in this petition. Hearing has been provided while perusing the paper book.

As per the prosecution case, 2000 tablets of ''Alprazolam'' were recovered from the possession of the petitioner during a search conducted at his house.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is running a medical store in the name and style of M/s. Navdeep Medical Hall inside Magazine Gate, Ferozepur City and is having a valid licence of chemist to sell, store and exhibit such medicines. He further contends that the petitioner purchased these medicines from M/s. Shivam Enterprises on 13.11.2013, a day prior to the registration of the FIR, against a valid bill. It is claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the case and in fact, the recovery of alleged medicines has been effected from the shop of the petitioner instead of his house. It is further claimed that if at all there is any violation, at the most, the same can be alleged to have invoked the provisions of the 1940 Act and not that of the 1985 Act.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner was suspected of selling intoxicating medicines to the youth for monetary considerations and he could not produce a valid bill or a drugs licence at the time of raid at his house. It is further claimed that he had been selling the medicines without prescription of an authorised medical practitioner.

Concededly, recovery of 200 strips each containing 10 tablets of ''Alprazolam'', is of medicines. Claim of the petitioner is that these medicines are manufactured by AKUM, a reputed company, and are marketed by Lupin, also a reputed company. It is not denied by the respondent-State that one cash memo of 13.11.2013 issued by M/s. Shivam Enterprises, a wholesale chemist of Bhatinda in the name of M/s. Navdeep Medical, Ferozepur city, a chemist shop of the petitioner, had been recovered from the petitioner by the investigating agency. Contention of the prosecution is that whereas the bill is of 180 strips, the recovery is of 200 strips. Stand of the petitioner is that even for rest of the strips, bill of purchase of such medicines, has been given to the investigating agency.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that ''Alprazolam'' salt which these tablets carry is covered at serial No. 30 of the Schedule appended to the 1985 Act but as per the recommendations of the Review Committee, Alprazolam is also covered by Schedule H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, the 1940 Act). It is, thus, contended that Alprazolam is covered under the 1940 Act. State of Uttaranchal Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, it is claimed that when Alprazolam falls within the purview of Schedule H of the 1940 Act, provisions of the 1985 Act would, prima-facie, not apply. Citing Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, wherein authority reported as State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) had also been considered, it is claimed that in such circumstances, where recovery inter alia of tablets containing Alprazolam was made, bail was granted. Support has also been sought from SLP No. (s) 9730 of 2012 titled Parmanand v. State of Haryana and others decided by Hon''ble Apex Court on 22.8.2013, where recovery of large number of allopathic drugs containing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance were recovered and bail was granted.

Further support has also been sought from a Division Bench judgment of this Court of 24.5.2013 passed in CRM-M No. 1379 of 2013 titled Ravinder Singh @ Rinku v. State of Punjab wherein in a case of recovery of manufactured drugs, interim bail was granted to the petitioner of the said petition. Reference has also been made to other judgments of this Court of 12.4.2013 and 26.4.2013 in CRM-M-4400 of 2013 titled Neeraj v. State of Punjab and in CRM-M-1822 of 2012 titled Vivek Batheja and another v. State of Punjab respectively. Reference has also been made to Ajit Kumar v. State of Punjab 2003 (3) RCR (Cri.) 186 (P&H), Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab 2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 276 (P&H), Manikali Siva Prasad v. State of A.P. & another 2011(8) RCR (Criminal) 1248 (Andhra Pradesh), Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 715 (P&H), wherein bail in similar circumstances was granted.

When it is not disputed that the petitioner is a registered pharmacist under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and that, he is also a licensed chemist and thus is duly authorised to sell, store and exhibit the allopathic medicines and the case is that bills of purchase of these medicines from authorised whole seller, namely, M/s. Shivam Enterprises, have been taken in possession by the investigating agency, and the matter whether the case in hand is to be covered under the 1940 Act alone or also under the 1985 Act is yet to be decided, there is no use for the petitioner-accused to be kept in custody any further. The petitioner is continuing in custody since 14.11.2013. Trial is not moving with the required speed keeping in view the nature of the offence.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. Nothing observed above shall have any bearing on the merits of the case.