ANIL VASUDEVA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING been apprehended and committed to custody since 31.10.2013 by the police of Police Station, Banur (District Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar) in First Information Report (for short, 'FIR') No. 73 dated 28.06.2013 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act'), on the allegation that 2,00,000 tablets of Lomotil, and 3,04,000 capsules of Parvon Spas and Spasmo Proxyvon, sale of which was prohibited after 23.05.2013, were recovered on 28.06.2013 from canter bearing registration No. PB 05S 9654 and the arrestees had disclosed that the recovered tablets and capsules belonged to Naresh Kumar and Gopal Krishan of Moga and Anil Vasudeva, the petitioner, who is the stockist of M/s. Wockhardt Limited and sole proprietor of M/s. Anil Enterprises, licenced to sell, stock, exhibit or offer for sale or distribute by wholesale drugs under various schedules/forms prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, 'the 1940 Act'), seeks his release from custody, pending trial, by way this petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). As usual, State is contesting the petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record of the case.

(3.) IN Collector of Central Excise versus New Tobacco Co. and others (supra) New Tobacco Co. Ltd. which was earlier known as Duncan Tobacco Co. was engaged in manufacturing cigarettes. Since 1979, it used to pay duty on cigarettes manufactured by it at the rate fixed by Central Excise Notification No. 30/79 dt. 1st March, 1979, as amended from time to time. It was rescinded w.e.f. 30th November, 1982 by Notification No. 284/82 -C dt. 30th November, 1982, which prescribed new rates of excise duty. Between 30th November, 1982 and 8th December, 1982, the Company cleared 79,456 million cigarettes and paid duty thereon at the rate fixed by the Notification dated 1st March, 1979, as it did not know that a new notification was issued on 30th November, 1982. As the company had paid duty at a lesser rate, a show cause notice dated 22nd December, 1982, was issued calling upon the company to show cause why it should not pay the differential amount between the duty short -paid and the duty which had become payable in terms of the new notification dated 30th November, 1982. The Assistant Collector by his order dated 11th April, 1983, confirmed the said demand. The order of the Assistant Collector was upheld by the Collector of Central Excise (A) on 4th October, 1985. It then appealed to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Only contention pressed by the company therein was that the Notification dated 30th November, 1982 was made available to the public on 8th December, 1982 and, therefore, duty at the enhanced rate could be lawfully demanded from it only from 8th December, 1982. Hon'ble the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Assistant Collector for deciding when the notification concerned became effective in accordance with the observations which are to the following effect: