Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
the order under challenge is set aside
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of this, 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…
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH 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.
The petitioner is a registered Medical Practitioner. On August 29th, 2003 he was found in possession of four drugs which are as under:-
1.288 tablets of Spasmorex
2.10 injections of Burpronorphine
3.350 tablets of Lomofin
4.430 tablets of Diazepam
The drugs were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh for analysis. It was found containing following ingredients:- Quantity of Parcel No.
3. 4 Buprenorphine Hydrochloride (Average mg/ml)
0.29 Dicyclomine Hydrochloride (Average mg/cap.)
19.3 Criminal Revision No. 359 of 2004. 2 Quantity of Parcel No. Paracetamol mg/caps) (Average
498.9 Diazepam (Average mg/tabs)
4.8 Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride (Average mg/cap) Atropine Sulphate (do) Furazolodine (do)
2.3
0.023
49.8
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.
Operative part
In view of this, 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, if so advised. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE
25.5.2011. SN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the order under challenge is set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 21, 22; Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 25 May 2011. The bench was NAWAB SINGH.
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.