(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 1985 Act) read with Section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short the 1940 Act) and the subsequent proceedings thereon.
(2.) F.I.R. No.4 dated 24-1-1995, P.S. City Kotkapura was registered against the petitioner on the allegation that Niranjan Kumar son of Han Chand has stored a large quantity of drugs-narcotics without permit in his residential house and in another room owned by Ram Chand but on rent with the petitioner. Further, it was alleged that in case a raid is conducted, large quantity of drugs and narcotics can be recovered from his possession. On this information, the residential premises of the petitioner and the room on rent with him were raided and the medicines detailed in Annexure P-2 to the petition were recovered.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even accepting the case of the prosecution in toto, no case under the 1985 Act has been made out as the tablets of Ethyl Morphine commonly known as Codiene including Dionine recovered from the petitioner do not fall within the definition of Narcotic because the quantity of Dionine per dosage unit was within the prescribed limit. Mr. Pun, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure R.I. the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Punjab, Chandigarh. At page 35 of the report, it finds mention that from the analyses of Dionindon tablets, the quantity of Ethyl Morphine was found 15 mg. per tablet. Mr. Pun on the basis of report of the Forensic Science Laboratory has contended that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in Surinder Kumar v. State of Puryab, and Deep Chand v. State of Puryab.