TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... practice is not satisfied then in the event of the entire 100 ml. content of the cough syrup containing the prohibited quantity of codeine phosphate is meant for human consumption, the same would certainly fall within the penal provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act calling for appropriate punishment to be inflicted upon the appellants. Therefore, the appellants’ failure to establish the specific conditions required to be satisfied under the above referred to notifications, the application of the exemption provided under the said notifications in order to consider the appellants’ application for bail by the Courts below does not arise. As far as the grievance raised on the ground that the appellants were illegally detained beyond 24 hours by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... huge quantity of pharmaceutical products, the driver of the vehicle could not produce any valid documents. Further the chemical analysis of the contents of the cough syrup disclosed that it contained codeine phosphate beyond the prescribed quantity and, therefore, the articles were seized. The appellants were produced before the C.J.M., Dhubri on 18.2.2012 who remanded them to judicial custody. 3. As we are concerned with the Bail Application No.885/12, we do not deal with the details of seizure and arrest effected on accused concerned in Bail Application No.886/12. 4. The appellants moved the Court of Sessions Judge, Dhubri for grant of bail and learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 30.3.2012 rejected the bail application. Thereafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with household articles in the vehicle, that it was not the case of the appellants that the seized pharmaceutical products were meant for supply to any dealer or shop to be sold by way of medicine under the prescription of approved medical practitioner and having regard to total quantity content of the prohibited substance, the plea of the appellants that provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act are not attracted, cannot be accepted. According to learned counsel for the State, the submission based on the number of days spent by the appellants in the prison was not raised before the High Court and, therefore, the same cannot be a ground for consideration in this appeal. 7. Having heard respective counsels and having perused the order of the Sessio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that each of the 100 ml. bottle, seized from the appellants, satisfy the requirement prescribed under the above referred to two Rules 65 and 97 and in the circumstances there was no question of proceeding against the appellants under the N.D.P.S. Act. 9. By referring to Rules 61(1) and 61(2) of the Drugs Cosmetics Rules, it was contended that the prescribed licence which is required for sale, stock, exhibit, offer for sale or distribution as a mandatory requirement under Section 27 of the Drugs Cosmetics Act providing for imposition of penalty would be applicable only to manufacturers or those who sell, stock, exhibit or offer for sale or distribution of drugs and that a transporter, in particular, the driver and a khalasi was under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each 100 ml. bottle if related to the permissible dosage, namely, 5 ml. would only result in less than 10 mg. of codeine phosphate thereby would fall within the permissible limit as stipulated in the Notifications dated 14.11.1985 and 29.1.1993. As rightly held by the High Court, the said contention should have satisfied the twin conditions, namely, that the contents of the narcotic substance should not be more than 100 mg. of codeine, per dose unit and with a concentration of not more than 2.5% in undivided preparation apart from the other condition, namely, that it should be only for therapeutic practice. Therapeutic practice as per dictionary meaning means contributing to cure of disease . In other words, the assessment of codeine cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ched by it, we do not find any scope to interfere with the same. 15. As far as the submission now made for the first time that the appellants had been in jail for more than the minimum required period is concerned, since neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court had the opportunity to examine the said claim made by the appellants, we do not propose to deal with the same in this appeal. 16. When we refer to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that none of the facts relating to those decisions are parallel to the facts of the present case. Those are all cases which were related to the persons who had valid licences and in the course of their regular business transaction when they were dealing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
