UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUBHASH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U. S. Tripathi, J. This application has been moved under Section 439 (2) Cr. P. C. for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party by Special Judge N. D. P. S. Act, Varanasi, vide order dated 17-6-2000 in Case Crime No. Nil of 2000, Union of India v. Subhash Chand Jain under Sections 8/22 NDPS Act, read with Rule 67 of the N. D. P. S. Rules.

(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly narrated, are that on 12-10- 1999 the Intelligence Officer of Narcotic Control Bureau, Varanasi received secret information that one Oswal Associates was indulging in wide scale diversion of psychotropic substances (Tidigesic) by making dispatches of drugs to such concerns as are totally non-existent or not receiving the drugs at all. On the above information, the opposite party was summoned and appeared before the Intelligence Officer of Narcotic Control Bureau, Varanasi on 12-11-1999 and gave his reply to the queries of Intelligence Officer regarding purchase and sale of tidigesic injection. On enquiry, it was revealed that the opposite party was the working partner of Messrs Oswal Associates and was purchasing tidigesic injection manufactured by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. from Messrs Aditya Medisales Ltd. (C and F Agent), Das Associates, Singer Singh Estate Building, Lalbhagh, Lucknow and selling the tidigesic injections to the persons mentioned in the sale invoices. THE above information was verified by the Intelligence Officer and statements of persons to whom sales were made were recorded who denied to have received such injections from Messrs Oswal Associates. THE opposite party thus deliberately violated the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 67 of NDPS Rules. He was, accordingly, arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 17-5-2000. On 19- 5-2000 he moved application for bail and the same was allowed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act on 17-6-2000.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant contended that from the statement of the opposite party as well as the persons to whom he allegedly sent the consignments through invoices referred to in paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it is clear that the opposite party violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 67 of NDPS Rules, but the learned Special Judge has wrongly held that there were reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of such offence and he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.