SURENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition, warrants, an, adjudication being meted, visavis, (a) the aggregate or the total, of, the banned narcotic substance, rather comprising the apposite parameter, for, making a further determination, qua, thereupon, the purported recovery(ies), from, the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the petitioner, being amenable, for, being categorized, as, (a) commercial quantity or more than commercial quantity thereof, (b) AND the aggregate or the gross weight, of, the entire contents, as, carried in the recovered psychotropic substance, likewise constituting the reckonable parameter, for making the apt determination, qua effectuation, of recovery(ies) thereof, from, the exclusive, and, conscious possession, of, the accused, being, hence construable to be (i) small quantity or (ii) more than small quantity or (ii)commercial quantity thereof.

(2.) In FIR No. 82 of 2018, registered against accused/petitioner herein, the FSL concerned (i) qua 1015 tablets of Alprazolam, allegedly recovered, from, the exclusive and conscious possession of petitioner herein, has opined, that the quantity, of, the purified content, of, the aforesaid psychotropic substance, as found, in the exhibit, carrying a weight, of, 4.90 grams, hence, primafacie, the pure content thereof, of, the aforesaid psychotropic substance, as extracted from the bulk thereof, falls within, domain, of, less than, the commercial quality thereof, (ii) yet the aggregate weight, of, the psychotropic substance, as, recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused, without segregating therefrom, the pure contents, thereof renders, the apposite haul, to fall, within, the domain, of it being construable to be categorized, as, more than commercial quantity, of alprazolam tablets (iii) thereupon reiteratedly also an adjudication, is to be meted qua any of the apt pure contents thereof, hence, comprising the apt parameter(s).

(3.) Mr. O.C Sharma, learned counsel appearing, for the petitioner, contends, that, with hence Alprazolam,occurring at serial No.178 of, the table appended, with, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act), and, with a clear, and, candid prescription, borne therein, wherein rather 5g, is specified, as, small quantity thereof, (i) hence, the aggregate quantum, only of, Alprazolam, as, borne in the seized narcotic substance, alone, being construable, to be the apt reckonable principle, for making the further determination, visavis, the psychotropic substance recovered, from the exclusive and conscious possession, of the accused, dehors, the total bulk of Alprozolam tablets, hence, falling or not falling, within the domain, of, small or more than small or commercial quantity thereof, (ii) specifically, when the table, with, clear explicitly hence refers to Alprazolam, and, omits to make any explicit reference therein, visavis, the other part of the psychotropic substance/neutral substance, carried in the seized Alprazolam tablets, rather, being also reckonable, nor , with, the total or aggregate, whereof, of, the entire milligram, carried in the seized alprazolam tablets, being mandated to comprise, the justifiable principle, hence, for making, the apt reckoning qua, the entire seizure hence falling within the domain of small quantity or more than small or commercial quantity thereof.