PURNA NAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(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 organised 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. Insupport of his contention Mr. Bawa cites Mohd. Shabir v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 (1) Supreme Court Cases 568.