The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that in order to attract Section 8 of the NDPS Act, it is necessary that narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, was being transported except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorization also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorization.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that secret information was received that a huge number of prohibited medicines were being transported in a vehicle and upon the information, the search was conducted and 480 bottles of WINCIREX cough syrup (100 ml.) were found in the said vehicle. Thereafter, the bottles were seized and the FIR was registered by the Assistant Sub Inspector for the offenses under Sections 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Section 18(c) of the Rules, 1945, and Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. The Petitioner for discharge was filed which was rejected. Aggrieved by this, the present revision petition is filed against the order.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was carrying medicine under a drug license issued by the competent authority and there exists no allegation in the FIR that the drug was being supplied to any common man, rather the drug was being carried for distribution to retailers during COVID period. Also, the drug was purchased with the tax invoices. It was furthermore contended that no cognizance can be taken under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, unless the prosecution has been instituted by the Inspector or a Gazetted Officer or the persons referred to therein.
The Petitioner relied upon the judgment titled Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State of UP.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that it is nowhere disputed that the Petitioner was carrying medicines under a valid drug licence issued by the competent authority.
It was furthermore observed that in order to attract Section 8 of the NDPS Act, it is necessary that narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, was being transported except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of license, permit or authorization also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such license, permit or authorization. The court noted that the prima facie violation of Section 8 of the NDPS Act is not made out.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the impugned order.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the revision petition.
Case title: Saurabh Kumar V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr. Rev. No. 257 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
