Gurlal Jeet Singh v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 21 Nov 2012
- Bench
- SABINA
Provisions considered
Judgment
Present: Mr. H.S.Saggu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surjit Singh Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 110 dated 2.6.2007 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) registered at Police Station Sadar Malout, District Muktsar (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Vide order dated 3.5.2012, the matter was referred to the committee constituted by the State Government to see whether the case of the petitioner was covered under the Act or not. The committee vide its report has opined as under:- “The Review Committee have gone through the case file and concerned record of this case. Gurlaljit Singh S/o Sh. Des Raj R/o Khunnan Kalan, Distt. Sri Muktsar Sahib Besides this, As per 413/08/Toxi/FSL/Pb Dated
30.5.2008. The Drug, Diphenoxylate Hcl recovered CRM No. M-13543 of 2010 (O&M) - 2- vide recovery memo is covered at Sr. No. 58 of the Notification No. 826 E Dated 14.11.85 and hence not covered under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 bearing drug formulation. The Drug Alprazolam is Psychotropic substances and covered under Schedule-H drug being drug formulations. Whereas drug Atropine Sulphate is Schedule-H drugs of Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940. But at the time of occurrence petitioner did not produce valid Drugs license and purchase bills for drugs recovered from him on the date of recovery. Hence, Committee is in the opinion that action can be taken against Gurlaljit Singh under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940, Rules 1945.” Thus, in view of the opinion of the committee, no offence under the Act is made out. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 110 dated 2.6.2007 under Section 22 of the Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Malout, District Muktsar (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. The Drug Inspector would be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. November 21, 2012 Gurpreet (SABINA) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22; Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 21 Nov 2012. The bench was SABINA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.