AJIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the charge under Sec. 22 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act., framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide order dated May 20, 2002 (Annexure P2).

(2.) The petitioner was found in possession of 10,000 tablets white in colour having contents of average 2.1 mg. per tablet disphenoxylate hydrochloride. For being in possession of the aforesaid tablets, the petitioner was charged for the offence punishable under Sec. 22 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. F.I.R. No. 299 dated Oct. 8, 2001 was registered at Police Station, Barnala. He was charged for the offence under Sec. 22 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act vide order dated May 20, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was salesman of M/s Dayal Medical Hall, Barnala, who are carrying on the business of wholesale and retail chemists, therefore, to be in possession of the aforesaid drugs was in the natural course of his business. He contends that at the time of his arrest, the petitioner was travelling with Hardyal Gupta, who is the proprietor of the aforesaid firm. He further stated that the said chemist had a valid licence for keeping in his possession the aforesaid drugs, as mentioned in the charge-sheet. A copy of the licence has been appended as Annexure P7, which was issued in the year 1994 and had continuously been renewed till Dec. 31, 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Deep Kumar Vs. Punjab State, 1997(2) RCR 417, and contended that the seized articles were manufactured drugs and that the chemist was a licensee and in these circumstances the petitioner has not committed any offence. He has also relied upon another judgment, namely, Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR 846.