Hardial Gupta vs State of Punjab

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the charge u/s 22 of the N.D.P.S.Act., framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide order dated May 20, 2002 (Annexure P1).

The petitioner was found in possession of 11,000 loose intoxicating tablets. 9 cartons of lomotil tablets each containing 20 boxes and each box containing 3500 tablets, 8 cartons each containing 72 boxes and each box containing 1000 tablets of phenotill anti-cold. 9 cartons of phenotill each containing 72 boxes and each box containing 100 tablets, 6 cartons of phenotil with detolsoap each containing 32 boxes and each box containing 2000 tablets, 11 boxes of nulide tablets each box containing 500 tablets and 60 boxes of diclofnac plus each containing 200 tablets without any valid permit or licence. For being in possession of the aforesaid tablets, the petitioner was charged for the offence u/s 22 of the N.D.P.S.Act. F.I.R.No.297 dated October 7, 2001 was registered at Police Station Barnala.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was a chemist and, therefore, to be in possession of the aforesaid drugs was in the natural course of his business. He further stated that the petitioner 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 petitioner was a licensee and in these circumstances he 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 vehicle carrying the drugs was intercepted, the driver 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 driver, who is carrying the drugs in his vehicle is not supposed to carry the licence. The petitioner was a chemist and it was natural for him to keep with him various life saving drugs manufactured by established companies. Thus, the trial Court was not justified in framing the charge against the petitioner and the same stands quashed.

The petition is, accordingly, allowed.