AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Phaneendra, J.—That on receipt of a credible information by the Senior Intelligence Officer of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as ''the DRI'' for short), Bengaluru on 06.04.2016, at about 8.00 a.m., visited the company by name M/s. RACS Pharmachem (I) Pvt. Ltd., situated at Plot No. 11, IP-13, Part-2, KIADB Industrial area, 1st Phase, Kudumalakunte Village, Gauribidanur, Chikkaballapur District, Karnataka and caused search in the Research and Development Department and also the car of the petitioner as well as the residence of the petitioner and found half-white power purported to be Alprazolam alleged to be a Psychotropic Substance totally to an extent of 81 kgs. Further, it is alleged that the petitioner has stored the said substance without licence or permission from the competent authority and the said Alprazolam can also be used for medicinal purpose and for some other purpose. Therefore, the possession of the said NDPS is an offence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the petitioner is a person who manufactures or prepares the said substance as a drug for the purpose of manufacturing medicinal drugs and he never used the same for any other purpose at any point of time. It is also not alleged anywhere in the police papers that he used at any point of time the said NDPS not as a drug as a medicine and for some other purpose.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi strenuously submitted that it is too premature stage to come to the conclusion that he only stored the NDPS for the purpose of medicinal aspect and not for any other purpose.
On careful perusal of the materials placed before this Court, there is no dispute that the petitioner is a chemist and he is involved in producing intermediate products, which in turn will be used for the purpose of manufacturing medicines. The Alprazolam not yet reached the final process and it is one stage less than Alprazolam (N-l). He is only doing this particular act for the purpose of supplying the same for pharmaceuticals for manufacturing medicines and further, he submitted that he is manufacturing the said intermediate product on trial basis, which cannot be at any stretch of imagination said that he has stored or having possession of the same for the purpose of using it as NDPS or a substance to cause any harm to any person or to the society at large. During the course of arguments, he has also produced the licence and certificate issued by the competent authorities for the purpose of doing such activity i.e., conducting the trial and also manufacturing intermediate products, which are not in dispute by the other side.
Though the learned counsel submits that he has no licence particularly for manufacturing medicine as such, the fact remains at this stage, that the prosecution has not produced sufficient materials to show that he is a habitual offender and he is producing these intermediate products to be used as a Psychotropic substance for the purpose of harming any person in the society or to cause damage to anybody.
During the course of investigation and during the course of trial, it should be established by the prosecution that he has particularly stored or having possession of the NDPS substance for some other purpose other than medicinal purpose.
Section 8 of the Act clearly discloses that if any NDPS or any drug is used for the purpose of manufacturing any medicine or for the purpose of using it as a medicine, it at-tracts exception under Section 8 of the Act and under such circumstances it cannot be termed as an offence under the Act.
Therefore, when it is a dilemma placed before the Court and doubtful circumstance is there that whether the accused petitioner was having possession of these articles for the purpose of utilising the same otherwise than the medicinal purpose then only the Court can with all certainty say that Section 37 of the Act is attracted till that point of time, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the accused is guilty of the said offence at this particular stage. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the above said facts and circumstances on stringent conditions. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in F.NO.DRI/ BZU/S-IV/INT-09/2016 on the file of the Director of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bangalore, which is pending on the file of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases (CCH-33), Bengaluru subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases (CCH-33), Bengaluru.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of further investigation, interrogation etc.,
(iv) The petitioner shall assist for completion of the investigation.
(v) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for valid reasons.