ROHIT CHADHA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C. feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2015 passed by the Special Judge, Rewa under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act"), in Special Case No.3/15, whereby the learned trial Judge has framed the charges against the applicant under Sections 8(C) read with 21(B) of the Act, along with other co-accused persons.

(2.) The facts that are relevant and necessary for adjudication of this revision are given below:

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the police had sent some bottles of the seized syrup as samples for chemical analysis to the ITL Labs Pvt. Ltd., Indore, which is recognized by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. According to the report of aforesaid laboratory, each bottle contains 100 ml. syrup and each 5 ml. syrup contains 9.825 mg. codeine phosphate, whereas a label pasted on each of the bottles claims 10 mgs. Having referred to the circular letters Nos. X-11029/27-D, dated 26.10.2005 and X-11029/09-D, dated 01.03.2009 issued by the Drugs Controller General India to all the State Drugs Controllers and notifications No. G.S.R. 588 (E), dated 30.08.2013, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the syrup is not a manufactured drug as per Section 2(11) of the Act as the concentration of codeine phosphate in it is mere 0.20% as compare to permissible limit 2.5%. Hence, the syrup comes under the Schedule H-1 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1940. Consequently, the acts of purchase, stocking, transportation and sale of the syrup do not attract the provisions of the Act and the Rules, 1985 made thereunder. He further submitted that the syrup is used in therapeutic practice for the treatment of cough. Therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant under Section 8(C) read with 21(B) of the Act. Consequently, the learned trial Judge has committed gross errors of law and facts by framing the aforesaid charges against the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order of framing of charge insofar as it relates to the applicant deserves to be quashed. In support of the submissions, he placed reliance upon the decisions rendered in the matters of Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 CrLJ 3329, Ashok Kumar v. Union of India, 2015 2 AllLJ 193 (date of order 15.10.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2976/2014 by Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajay Lamba of the Allahabad High Court) and Deep Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1997 CrLJ 3104.