JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this second petition under Sec. 439 Crimial P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.339 dated 08.11.2016 under Sec. 22 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. From the record, first of all, I find that this is second regular bail application filed by the petitioner and the first bail application had already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 02.06.2017 by discussing the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner now relied upon the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sajan Abraham vs. State of Kerala, 2004 2 RCR(Cri) 137. I have gone through the above-cited judgment and the same 1 of 3 having distinguished facts, will not apply in the present case. Firstly, in that case, the Honourable Apex Court has held that recovery on the basis of percentage of sale is small quantity but now, after the notification of 2009, the total quantity is to be taken for the purpose of considering, whether the recovery falls in commercial or non-commercial category. Admittedly, the recovery from the present petitioner i.e. 73 Injections of Buprenorphine falls under commercial category. Secondly, in para No.9 of Sajan Abraham's case (supra), it is held that there is evidence on record which indicates that the appellant used the said drug and this is obvious from the deposition of the Investigating Officer, PW-3 as well as the deposition of his mother, DW-1. Moreover, three syringes were also recovered from the appellant which also is indicative of the fact that the psychotropic substance recovered from him was for his personal consumption and not for trading purposes. In the present case, at this stage, there is nothing to show that the recovery from the present petitioner is for personal purposes. No medical record has been produced to show that the recovered drug has been prescribed nor there is anything to show, from which illness, the petitioner is suffering for which the recovered injections are required for personal use. Therefore, the judgment cited above by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case. In no way, at this stage, it can be held that 73 injections of Buprenorphine are for the personal use for medical purposes.

(3.) The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner can keep 100 dosages of that substance, without showing that psychotropic substance recovered from the possession of the petitioner is 2 of 3 for medical purpose, has no merit. It means that a person can keep/possess 100 dosages of each of the psychotropic substance which falls in the NDPS Act without any medical prescription or without showing the fact that those have been kept for medical purposes and for personal use.