CRM No. M-33591 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-33591 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.3.2009
Charanjit Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rajan Gupta, J.
The petitioner has preferred this petition for grant of regular
bail in a case registered against him under Section 22/61/85 of N.D.P.S.
Act, vide FIR No.88 dated 15th September, 2007 at Police Station Nihal
Singh Wala, District Moga, on the ground that no offence is made out
against him under the N.D.P.S. Act. Offence, if any, would be made out
under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act. This apart, the petitioner has been
in custody since 15th September, 2007. He thus deserves to be enlarged
on bail during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the State has, however, vehemently
opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. He has referred
to Entry 44 of the Schedule-I of the N.D.P.S. Act and contended that
any person in possession of Diphenoxylate in excess of 50 grams can be
charged under the NDPS Act and the same being commercial quantity,
he would not be entitled to be enlarged on bail. According to the
CRM No. M-33591 of 2008 2
learned counsel, the present petitioner was found in possession 40000
Memolit tablets which would be formulated medicines having the salt of
Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride. The same being commercial quantity,
Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted to the case. Apart from
this, learned counsel has emphasized that the prosecution has to
examine only 13 witnesses, out of whom four have already been
examined. It is unlikely that the trial would be prolonged.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the
considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
He was found in possession of 40,000 Memolit tablets in which salt of
Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride would be 96 grams. The same being
commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted to
this case.
Under the circumstances, this petition is devoid of merit.
The same is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
March 27, 2009
‘rajpal’