9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LP (Crl) No.5895 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1523 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5886 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1527 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5894 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1524 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5891 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1529 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5896 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1522 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5877 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1533 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7223 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1532 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7222 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1536 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7228 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1531 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7221 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1534 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7225 of 2018) And Criminal Appeal No. 1535 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7227 of 2018) Justice N. V. Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar And Justice M. R. Shah JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals are filed by the State having been aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 29th January, 2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, allowing the applications for suspe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 lac fine. Judge, Special Court, Bathinda - 09.01.2015 8. CRA¬ S¬200¬ SB¬ 2017 Gudawar Ram @ Gabbu 60 gms intoxicating powder containing Diphenoxylate salt U/s 22 of NDPS Act - 10 years RI & Rs. 1.00 lac fine. Judge, Special Court, SBS Nagar - 09.12.2016 9. CRA¬ Baljinder 7500 mls of Corex U/s 22 of Judge, S-766¬ SB¬ 2017 Singh @ Banty syrup containing Codeine phosphate NDPS Act - 10 years RI & Rs. 1.00 lac fine. Special Court, Sangrur - 20.12.2016 10. CRA¬ S¬ 1413¬ SB¬ 2017 Sukhraj Kaur @ Raj 120 bottles of Rexcof containing Codeine phosphate U/s 22 of NDPS Act - 10 years RI & Rs. 1.00 lac fine. Judge, Special Court, Sangrur - 08.03.2017 11. CRA¬ S¬ 4055¬ SB¬ 2016 Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi 25 gms Heroin & 250 gms intoxicating powder containing Alprazolam U/s 21 of NDPS Act - 10 years RI & Rs. 1.00 lac fine. Judge, Special Court, Amritsar - 06.09.2016 12. CRA¬ S¬ 2933¬ SB¬ 2016 Salwinder Singh @ Shinda 320 gms intoxicating powder containing Diphenoxylate U/s 22 of NDPS Act - 10 y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I & Rs. 1.00 lac fine. Judge, Special Court, Sangrur - 16.10.2015 22. CRA¬ S¬ 2574¬ SB¬ 2017 Satnam Singh 20 vials of Rexcof containing Dextropropoxyphene U/s 22of NDPS Act - 10 years RI & Rs. 1.00 lac fine. Judge, Special Court, Faridkot - 06.07.2017 23. CRA¬ S¬ 1616¬ SB¬ 2017 Amit Kumar Mehta 2000 tablets containing Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride U/s 22 of NDPS Act - 10 years RI & Rs. 1.00 lac fine. Judge, Special Court, Patiala - 01.03.2017 24. CRA¬ S¬185¬ SB¬ 2017 Gurjant Singh @ Janta 60 gms intoxicating powder containing Diphenoxylate U/s 22 of NDPS Act - 10 years J RI & Rs. 1.00 lac fine. Addl. Sessions udge, Tarn Taran - 20.10.2016 25. CRM¬ M¬ 23054¬ 2017 Gurpreet Singh @ Tuli 100 tablets marka Alprazolam in 5 strips, 12 injections Buprenorphine 2 ml, 2 bottles of injections Avil 10 ml & 116 gms intoxicant powder U/s 22/61/85 of NDPS Act Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar 4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and conviction by the respective Trial Courts, the accused respondents approached the High Court t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... going to be adjudicated in the near future. 7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 8. At the outset it is essential to note the objectives of the two legislations before us, i.e., the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the N.D.P.S Act. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was enacted to specifically prevent substandard drugs and to maintain high standards of medical treatment. (See Chimanlal Jagjivandas Sheth v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 665) The Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940 was mainly intended to curtail the menace of adulteration of drugs and also of production, manufacture, distribution and sale of spurious and substandard drugs. On the other hand, the N.D.P.S Act is a special law enacted by the Parliament with an object to control and regulate the operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. After analyzing the objectives of both the Acts, we can safely conclude that while the Drugs and Cosmetics Act deals with drugs which are intended to be used for therapeutic or medicinal usage, on the other hand the N.D.P.S Act intends to curb and penalize the usage of drugs which are usedfor intoxication or for getting a stimulant effect. 9. At this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tensively stressed that the actions of the accused Respondents amounts to clear violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S Act as it clearly prohibits possession of narcotic substances except for medicinal or scientific purposes. In furtherance of the same, the counsel on behalf of the appellant State has put emphasis on the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Union of India vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra), wherein it was held that: "25. In other words, DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is permissible only when such DEALING is for medical purposes or scientific purposes. Further, the mere fact that the DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is for a medical or scientific purpose does not by itself lift the embargo created Under Section 8(c). Such a dealing must be in the manner and extent provided by the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders made thereunder. Sections 9 and 10 enable the Central and the State Governments respectively to make rules permitting and regulating various aspects (contemplated under Section 8(c), of DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 26.The Act does not contemplate framing of rules for proh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 instead of the N.D.P.S Act, as they were found in possession of the "manufactured drugs", does not hold good in law. Further, in the present case, the accused-respondents had approached the High Court seeking suspension of sentence. However, in granting the aforesaid relief, the High Court erroneously made observations on the merits of the case while the appeals were still pending before it. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the gravity of offence alleged against the accused respondents, the order of the High Court directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is clearly unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. 18. Accordingly the impugned order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the concerned authorities are directed to take the accused respondents herein into custody forthwith. 19. Lastly, the counsels for respondents in Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4816/2018 and SLP (Crl) No.4817/2018 have specifically pleaded that the respondents have already undergone a considerable period under incarceration. In light of the same, we request the High Court to expedite t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
