2017 (12) TMI 641 - HC - Indian Laws

Offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act - benefit of bail - 199 bottles of Wincerex Cough Syrup were recovered - Held that - This Court is of the opinion that the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in Mohd. Sahabuddin & Anr. Vs. State of Assam (2012 (10) TMI 1163 - SUPREME COURT) is amply clear, whereby the recovery of cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate in bail matter was found to be sufficient ground to reject the bail application. The said precedent law has been followed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforequoted judgment, after considering at length, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Merely because the recovery is of small quantity, as defined in the Schedule, the benefit of bail cannot be granted to the present petitioners. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that since Codeine Phosphate has been defined as manufactured drugs under the NDPS Act and falls within the purview of the said Act and the investigation in the present case is still continuing, no case for grant of bail to the present petitioners is made out.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. Offences under Sections 8/21 and 25 of the NDPS Act and Section 18 C/27 B of the Drugs Act.
3. Definitions of 'Narcotic Drug' and 'Manufactured Drug' under the NDPS Act.
4. Interpretation of commercial and small quantities of narcotic substances.
5. Applicability of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
6. Precedent laws and judgments regarding the classification of drugs containing Codeine Phosphate.
7. Relevance of Central Government Notifications on narcotic substances.
8. Application of Supreme Court precedents in similar cases.
9. Consideration of the petitioners' previous involvement in similar offences.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:
The petitioners moved bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIRs registered for offences under the NDPS Act and the Drugs Act. The court denied bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the quantities of narcotic substances involved.

2. Offences under Sections 8/21 and 25 of the NDPS Act and Section 18 C/27 B of the Drugs Act:
The FIRs pertained to the recovery of significant quantities of Wincerex Cough Syrup and other drugs containing Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride. The court highlighted that these substances fall under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act and the Drugs Act, making the offences severe.

3. Definitions of 'Narcotic Drug' and 'Manufactured Drug' under the NDPS Act:
The court examined the definitions under Sections 2(xiv) and 2(xi) of the NDPS Act. Codeine Phosphate, being a 'manufactured drug', falls within the ambit of 'narcotic drug', thus subjecting the petitioners to the provisions of the NDPS Act.

4. Interpretation of Commercial and Small Quantities of Narcotic Substances:
The court referred to the Schedule defining small and commercial quantities of narcotic substances. It noted that the quantities recovered from the petitioners were substantial but below commercial quantities. Despite this, the court found the offences serious enough to deny bail.

5. Applicability of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940:
The petitioners argued that the substances should be regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as they are prescription drugs listed in Schedule-H and Schedule-G. However, the court found that the NDPS Act's provisions were applicable due to the narcotic content.

6. Precedent Laws and Judgments Regarding the Classification of Drugs Containing Codeine Phosphate:
The petitioners cited several precedents, including judgments from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which distinguished cases involving commercial quantities of Codeine Phosphate. The court, however, found these precedents inapplicable, emphasizing the specific facts and quantities involved in the current cases.

7. Relevance of Central Government Notifications on Narcotic Substances:
The court considered the Central Government's notification S.O. 826(E) dated 14.11.1985, which exempts certain preparations containing Codeine from being classified as 'manufactured drugs' under specific conditions. The court concluded that the conditions for exemption were not met in the present cases.

8. Application of Supreme Court Precedents in Similar Cases:
The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mohd. Sahabuddin & Anr. Vs. State of Assam, which held that transportation of cough syrups containing Codeine Phosphate without valid documentation falls under the NDPS Act. The court found this precedent directly applicable and persuasive.

9. Consideration of the Petitioners' Previous Involvement in Similar Offences:
The court noted that one of the petitioners had a history of involvement in similar offences, further justifying the denial of bail.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the bail applications, concluding that the substances recovered fell under the NDPS Act's provisions, and the petitioners failed to meet the conditions for exemption. The investigation was ongoing, and the court found no grounds to grant bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the applicability of Supreme Court precedents.