STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein is an Ayurvedacharya. He operates from two clinics known as: (1) Neeraj Clinic Pvt. Ltd. (NCPL) and (2) Dr. B. S. Gupta Medical Charitable Society (BSGMCS). Advertisements were, allegedly, being issued by him in various newspapers claiming that the medicines used by him were prepared from herbal plants collected from the Banks of Ganges and by application thereof patients suffering from epilepsy can be cured. The State, however, on the allegation that in his medicine, he had been using unlabelled tablets containing psychotropic substances making the unsuspecting patients addicted to the drugs, raided the premises of the said clinics. 70 kgs. pure phenobarbitone were recovered. It is alleged that through NCPL 336.88 kgs., 524 kgs., 537.32 kgs. and 117 kgs. of drugs (phenobarbitone) were sold in the years 2001 -2002, 2002 -2003, 2003 -2004 and 2004 -2005 (April to July) respectively and through BSGMCS 398.65 kgs., 406.88 kgs., 519.95 kgs. and 235.12 kgs. of drugs (phenobarbitone) were sold in the years 2001 -2002, 2002 -2003, 2003 -2004 and 2004 -2005 (April to July) respectively.

(2.) The drugs allegedly used to be dispatched by post also. Appellant was arrested on 13.08.2004 and since then he is in jail custody. Charges were framed against him under Section 8 read with Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('1985 Act', for short) and Drugs and Magic remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954. An application for bail was moved by him before the Special Judge. It was dismissed. He filed an application for bail, however, before the High Court on 30.07.2005, which has been granted. Special Leave Petition was filed thereagainst and by an order dated 14.11.2005, the bail application was revived. The High Court was requested to dispose of the same expeditiously. By reason of the impugned order dated 2.12.2005 the said bail application has been allowed. The State is, thus, before us.

(3.) In its order the High Court noticed that ordinarily applications for bail are required to be considered having regard to Section 37 of the 1985 Act. It, however, opined that the drugs in question not being listed in the 1st Schedule appended to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 ('the Rules', for short), the respondent cannot be said to have committed any offence under Section 8 read with Section 22 of 1985 Act.