AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Baramulla
(hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) by virtue of which the bail application of the petitioner was rejected. The said order has been assailed by
the petitioner on the ground that while considering the application for grant of bail it is only the quantity of narcotic drug or substance that is required to
be considered and not the quantity of whole mixture. It is also stated that the learned trial court has not considered other grounds of the bail that the
wife of the petitioner was handicapped and the petitioner had three children, who cannot sustain themselves. It is further stated that there is no
provision which bars the grant of bail at all, if the accused is found involved in the commission of offences under sections 8 and 22 of the Narcotics
Drug Psychotropic Substance, 1985 (for short the Act).
Before appreciating the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to have brief resume of the prosecution story. The petitioner was arrested on
17.04.2018 by the Police of Police Station, Pattan on the allegation that he was in possession of 50 bottles of Phenoreox 100 ml each. Thereafter, FIR
bearing No. 81/2018 was registered against the petitioner for commission of offences under sections 8 and 22 of the Act. After the conclusion of the
investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory’s report also, substance Codeine Phosphate
and Triprolidine HCL detected in the exhibit, was narcotic, analgesic, anti-allergic, anti-tussive cough suppressant, excessive use of which can cause
addiction.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has disputed the conclusion made by the trial court while rejecting the application for grant of
bail filed by the petitioner.
A perusal of the order impugned reveals that 50 bottles of Phenoreox 100 ml. each were recovered from the petitioner, those admittedly contained
Codeine Phosphate. As per entry No. 28 of the notification bearing No. SO-1055(e) dated 19.10.2001, the commercial quantity of the Codeine has
been prescribed as 01 Kg and the total quantity of recovered contraband from the possession of the petitioner comes out to be 5000 ml Codeine
Phosphate, which is equivalent to approximately 5 Kg of Codeine Phosphate that admittedly is much beyond the commercial quantity, as such, the trial
court has rightly come to the conclusion that the quantity of the contraband recovered from the petitioner falls within the purview of commercial
quantity. A perusal of the order reveals that the trial court has rightly considered all the aspects, those were raised by the petitioner in the bail
application.
In view of the above, there is no illegality or impropriety in the order impugned passed by the trial court that warrants interference by this Court.
The revision petition is, as such, dismissed.