CHATUR GOUTAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the applicant.

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

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a "Journalist" by profession. On account of his investigative journalism, he is falsely implicated by the police in the case. He further submitted that the Special Judge has framed the charge(s) upon the confessional statement of co-accused Vijay Kumar Pandey, whereas it is settled in law that on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused, the charge(s) cannot be framed. He further submitted that co-accused Vijay Kumar Pandey has stated in his confessional statement that co-accused Kamal Nayan Pandey sold the seized syrup to him at his instance except that there is no evidence on record against the applicant. Hence, on the basis of the said statement prima facie, the offence under Section 8 (C) r/w 21 (B) of the Act is not made out against the applicant. He further submitted that as per the charge-sheet, each bottle contains 100 ml. syrup and each 5 ml. syrup contains 10 mgs. codeine phosphate. 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, he further 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 Rule 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 in law and on facts by framing the charge 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 Vs. State of Punjab, 1996 CrLJ 3329 Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India, (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 Vs. State of Punjab, 1997 CrLJ 3104.