STATE OF HARYANA Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment both Criminal Revision Nos. 470 of 1987 and 477 of 1987 can conveniently be disposed of together. Since the controversy revolves around identical questions, the facts are being mentioned from Criminal Revision No. 470 of 1987 titled State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar.

(2.) The relevant facts are that on 17-11-1985 ASI Nathu Ram accompanied by other constableswere going to village Anta in connection with investigation of a case arising out of FIR No. 395/1985 with respect to offences punishable under Ss. 457/380, IPC, Police Station Safidon. When they reached Khansar Chowk at 10.15 a.m. secret information was received that respondent was practising as a Medical Practitioner and he keeps in his possession intoxicating tablets. On the basis of information, it was considered that the respondent had contravened the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter described as 'the Act). A ruqa was sent to the police station. Thereafter the respondent was arrested and interrogated. He made a disclosure statement that he has kept in a plastic bag certain tablets. In pursuance of that statement, the respondent got recovered 125 tablets. 10 tablets were taken as the sample. The sample and the remaining tablets were sealed into separate parcels and taken into possession vide a recovery memo. The parcels were deposited in the Malkhana. Subsequently, the representative sample was sent for chemical analysis. The report of the Chemical Analyst revealed that it contained diazepam. The investigation concluded that it contravened the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Report under Section 173, Cr. P.C. was filed.

(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, Jind vide the impugned order held that diazepam though a psychotropic substance, could be possessed particularly when the respondent had the licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It was held that provisions of Section 8 of the Act had not been contravened. The respondents accordingly were discharged. Aggrieved by the said order, the State has preferred the present revision petitions.