Purna Nand And Anr. vs State
1985 Latest Caselaw 448 Del

JUDGMENT

Charanjit Talwar, J.

(1) These two petitions, Criminal Revisions 163 and 94, of 1985, have been filed seeking quashing of order dated 2nd May, 1985, of Mr. P.S. Sharma. Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he directed that charges under Sections 17/18 read with Section 27 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter called 'the Act') be framed against the petitioners Puma Nand and Gian Parkash. I may note that Puma Nand is the father of Gian Parkash.

(2) To appreciate the contention of Bawa Gurbachan Singh a few facts maybe noticed. The cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate on a complaint filed by Mr. V.B. Bajpai, Drug Inspector, who is admittedly a public servant. Mr. Bajpai has been examined as Public Witness .I. According to that witness a raid was organized and conducted on 6th August, 1975, at about 1 a.m. at the house of the petitioners herein. S/Shri S.P. Luthra, Dr. Sharma and Surinder Mohan Narula were members of the raiding party. On search of the house a tin box allegedly containing sub-standard drugs was recovered from underneath a bed.

(3) It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case as the objection to the framing of charges rests solely only on a legal objection. It is urged by Bawa Gurbachan Singh that the ingredients of Section 18 of the Act have not been proved even prima facie in this case. It is submitted that in order to bring a case within the ambit of the provisions of the Act, the prosecution must establish that the drugs which had been stocked or stored were for sale. In support of his contention Mr. Bawa cites Mohd. Shabir v. State of Maharashtra, .

(4) Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel for the State, however, submits that Mohd. Shabir's case (supra) has been distinguished by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1984, decided on 29th August, 1985, State v. Puran Lai Ahuja. In the said appeal, the acquittal of the respondent by the learned Magistrate was set aside. While allowing the appeal Sachar C.J. referred to the case of Mohd. Shabir and observed that the accused in the said case had no shop nor was he a distribution agent and further neither was there any evidence to show that he was selling the tablets or had stocked them or accepted them for sale. I may note here that some drugs were recovered from Mohd. Shebir at the railway station. In the case of Puran Lai Ahuja, the drugs in question were recovered from his stall which he was manning. Because of that fact his Lordship observed "It would be a great travesty of justice if even when such large quantity of drugs are found and the accused is not in a position to explain as to why such large quantity of goods have been kept it should still beheld by the Court that it has not been shown that the goods were stored or stocked for sale".

(5) In my view the facts in Puran Lal Ahuja's case and in the connected appeal. State v. Ishwar Dass and another (Criminal Appeal 65 of 1984), which was also decided by the same Bench on 19th August, 1985, are distinguishable. It has been observed by the Division Bench that in the natural course of events it ought be held that the drugs that have been recovered from a stall are stored or exhibited for sale. It was the prosecution case, however, that Ishwar Dass was the person who was supplying those drugs to Puran Lal Ahuja. In the present case there is not even an iota of evidence on record that the petitioners have a shop or that they were going to or had distributed the drugs earlier. The law laid down in Mohd. Shabir's case is directly applicable to the facts of the instant case. The facts, in my view, in that case cannot be distinguished from those in the present case. The ratio of Puran Lal Ahuja's case does not apply.

(6) In the result the revision petitions are allowed. The order dated 2nd May, 1985, of the Additional Sessions Judge is quashed. Consequently, the charges framed in view of the impugned order are also quashed.