ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offence under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 ( hereinafter called 'the Act' for short). The Petitioner had earlier filed CRM No. M -29737 of 2010 for grant of regular bail. In the said petition, an affidavit of Jaskaranjit Singh Teja, PPS, DSP, Sunam was filed in which it was stated that as per the report of the Chemical Laboratory, Government of India, the analysis of the sample indicate that it contained 'lorazepam'. Legal opinion was sought from the Deputy District Attorney and it was opined that the salt 'lorazepam' falls in the list of psychotropic substances in the schedule of the Act. The Petitioner was apprehended with two kgs of intoxicant which on analysis was found to contain 'lorazepam' of 1.424%. The salt of lorazepam is a psychotropic substance in terms of entry No. 56 of the schedule relating to psychotropic substances under the Act.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that vide licence No. 19310 dated 8.6.2007 M/s. Shiva Medical Hall has also been licensed to sell stock or exhibit (or offer) for sale, or distribute by wholesale drugs other than those specified in Schedule C, C(i) and X on the premises situated near Housing Board Colony, Bus Stand Road, Sangrur. The drug of 'lorazepam', which has been recovered, it is submitted falls within the schedule 'H' of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945. It is, therefore, submitted that the Petitioner can store 'lorazepam' under licence No. 19310 dated 8.6.2007, a copy of which the learned Counsel has produced in Court and the same is taken on record. A reference has also been made to the order dated 12.3.2010 (Annexure P4) passed by the Judge, Special Court, Sangrur whereby bail has been granted to the Petitioner in case FIR No. 215 dated 26.12.2009, registered at Police Station Sadar, Sunam for the offence under Section 22 of the Act. In the said order, a reference has been made to licence No. 19310 dated 8.6.2007. It was observed by the learned Judge, Special Court that it is evident that two inquiries were conducted in the case i.e one by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Sangrur who suggested for filing of cancellation report and another inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police, who also suggested for filing of cancellation report by observing that Anita Rani owned the store and Anil Kumar (Petitioner), her husband was working as a Salesman with her. It was, therefore, observed that since the drugs allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant -accused was possessed under valid licence and invoice, he was admitted to bail.