9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Interpretation of Section 21 of the Act regarding contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations. Determination of whether possession and sale of a specific drug fall within the ambit of the term "manufactured drug." Analysis of exceptions provided in the Central Government notification regarding the permissible content of certain drugs. Consideration of legal provisions and strict construction of penal statutes in the context of drug-related offenses. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash FIR No. 48 dated 15-4-1995, registered for an offense under Sections 21/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, along with subsequent proceedings. The petitioner was found in possession of Phensedyl intoxicating medicine, leading to the initiation of legal action against him. 2. The FIR indicated that the petitioner was in possession of 35 bottles of Phensedyl, with each bottle containing 125 ml of the medicine. Samples were drawn from the bottles, and a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed the presence of Codeine Phosphate in the samples. 3. The petitioner, holding valid drug licenses, argued that the drug Phensedyl, manufactured by a recognized company, did not constitute an offense under Section 21 of the Act as it did not qualify as a "manufactured drug" within the Act's definition. 4. The State contended that the Codeine content in Phensedyl was sufficient for intoxication purposes, and the petitioner failed to produce necessary documentation. The State maintained that the offense under Section 21 of the Act was established and thus opposed the quashing of the FIR. 5. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the evidence on record. 6. It was established that the petitioner operated a licensed chemist shop and that Phensedyl was a recognized cough linctus. The Forensic Science Laboratory report confirmed the presence of Codeine Phosphate in the samples. 7. Section 21 of the Act pertains to contraventions related to manufactured drugs and preparations. The Central Government's notification outlined exceptions for certain drugs, including those established in therapeutic practice, which fall outside the Act's purview. 8. The analysis revealed that the Codeine content in Phensedyl met the permissible limits specified in the notification, making it exempt from Section 21 of the Act. The drug's established therapeutic use further supported its exclusion from the Act's provisions. 9. The State argued that Phensedyl was misused for intoxication, but the court clarified that such concerns did not automatically constitute an offense under Section 21. The court emphasized the need for strict interpretation of penal statutes. 10. Any violations related to the sale of drugs without proper documentation could be addressed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, rather than Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 11. The court reiterated the importance of interpreting penal statutes strictly and ensuring that offenses align with the statute's intended scope. The Act applies to specific narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, not all intoxicating substances. 12. Given the exemption provided in the Central Government's notification, Phensedyl did not fall under Section 21 of the Act, even if misused by certain individuals. The court concluded that, based on the legal analysis, no offense under Section 21 was established, warranting the quashing of the FIR and related proceedings. 13. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and FIR No. 48 dated 15-4-1995 was quashed. Any seized goods were directed to be returned to the petitioner promptly.
|
