Ajit Kumar vs State of Punjab

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the charge u/s 27 of the N.D.P.S.Act. framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide order dated May 20, 2002 (Annexure P2).

The petitioner was found in possession of 10,000 tablets while in colour having contents of average 2.1 mg. per tablet disphenoxy late hydrochloride. For being in possession of the aforesaid tablets, the petitioner was charged for the offence punishable u/s 22 of the N.D.P.S.Act. F.I.R.No. 299 dated October 8, 2001 was registered at Police Station, Barnala. He was charged for the offence u/s 22 of the N.D.P.S.Act vide order dated May 20, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was a salesman of M/s Dayal Medical Hall, Barnala, who are carrying on the business of wholesale and retail chemists, therefore, to be in possession of the aforesaid drugs was in the natural course of his business. He contends that at the time of his arrest, the petitioner was travelling with Hardyal Gupta, who is the proprietor of the aforesaid firm. He further stated that the said chemist had a valid licence for keeping in his possession the aforesaid drugs, as mentioned in the charge-sheet. A copy of the licence has been appended as Annexure P7, which was issued in the year 1994 and had continuously been renewed till December 31, 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Deep Kumar v. Punjab State 1997(2) R.C.R. 417, and contended that the seized articles were manufactured drugs and that the chemist was a licensee and in these circumstances the petitioner has not committed any offence. He has also relied upon another judgment, namely, Rajeev Kumar v. State of Punjab 1997(4) R.C.R. 846.

Learned counsel for the respondent contended that at the time when the vehicles carrying the drugs was intercepted, the petitioner could not produce any licence for being in possession of the aforesaid drugs.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I find that the petitioner, who is an employee of a chemist, is not supposed to carry the licence with him while he was travelling with the proprietor of the licenced chemist shop. The petitioner was a salesman of a licensed chemist and it was natural for him to keep the aforesaid drug with him manufactured by an established company. Thus, the trial Court was not justified in framing the charge against the petitioner and the same stands quashed.

The petition is, accordingly, allowed.