PARVESH KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein were found in possession of certain medicines which could be possessed only under a licence. Petitioner- Parvesh Kumar is a licensed chemist and the other two petitioners- Manpreet Singh and Samittar Singh are in his employment. It is apparent from the record that the relevant matter (qua the possession of such like medicines by a duly licensed chemist) had been referred to a State Level Review Committee.

(2.) The learned counsel for the State informs that the State Level Review Committee had recorded a finding that Parvesh Kumar deserves to prosecuted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; while petitioners- Manpreet Singh and Samittar Singh deserve to be challaned under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Insofar as the non-maintainability of the prosecution against the employees, who do not possess medicines in their own right but are carrying the same in their as employees of the main accused, reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Criminal Misc. No.20741-M of 2004 titled Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Ajit Kumar Vs. State of Punjab,2003 3 RCR (Criminal) 186.

(3.) Learned State counsel states that he is not in a position to contest the averment on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the finding of the State Level Review Committee and also the judicial pronouncement aforementioned, this petition deserves to be allowed. He states that State would reserve liberty to prosecute Parvesh Kumar under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.