In a revision petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for setting aside an order dated 25-02-2022 by the Judge, Special Court, Faridkot, whereby the petitioner’s application for his release from custody was dismissed and charges were framed against him regarding a First Information Report (FIR) registered under Section 22(C) and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), a Single Judge Bench of Justice H.S. Grewal allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order.
On 23-05-2021, a canter approaching from Bathinda was signalled to stop by a police party, and two occupants were apprehended. After search, five boxes as well as 17 strips having Lomotil tablets were recovered. Hence, it was alleged that a total of 31,020 intoxicant tablets were recovered from the possession of the occupants. During investigation, one of the occupants disclosed that the tables were purchased from the petitioner, a proprietor of a medical store in Delhi. Based on this, the petitioner was nominated as an accused in the present case under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
Upon search of the petitioner’s premises, 184 strips of Lomotil tablets, 6 strips of Alprazolam tablets, 11 strips of Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets with two boxes of Dicyclomine Hydrochloride Tramadol Hydrochloride and Acetaminophen capsules were recovered from his residential house’s storeroom on the back side of his shop, which led to the petitioner’s arrest. After the report under Section 173 CrPC was presented in the Court, the petitioner’s brother moved an application before the DIG, Faridkot for an enquiry regarding the petitioner’s innocence.
It was found upon enquiry that the petitioner held a valid license and the license produced by the co-accused regarding purchase of medicine from the petitioner was found to be fictitious. The petitioner was found to be innocent and a special report under Section 173(8) was presented in the Court, but the Investigating Officer, who had refused to agree with the special report, was summoned for recording of his statement.
The Court noted that the trial court, while dismissing the petitioner’s discharge application, held that even though the petitioner had the license to sell, stock, or exhibit for sale or distribute retail drugs, the drugs were not recovered from his shop but his residential house’s store room and that the petitioner had not produced any license to the IO at the time. It was stated that only because the medicines were allegedly recovered from the store room situated behind the petitioner’s shop and not from the exact shop premises could not lead to an inference of criminal involvement.
Further, the Court found no incriminating material against the petitioner except the co-accused person’s disclosure statement to show that the petitioner was involved in an unlawful activity under the NDPS Act. It was said that “mere supply of medicines by a licensed dealer in the ordinary course of business, without any material showing conscious knowledge, deliberate concealment, or intentional involvement in illegal activity, could not by itself make out a criminal case.”
Thus, the petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and it was clarified that the trial was to continue as per law against the remaining accused persons.