Recovery From Store Room Behind Shop Not Enough To Infer Criminality: P&H High Court Discharges Licensed Chemist In NDPS Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that recovery of medicines from a location slightly different from the licensed premises, by itself, cannot establish criminal liability under the NDPS Act, particularly when the accused is a licensed dealer.Justice H.S. Grewal said, "It is apt to notice that merely because the medicines were allegedly recovered from the store room situated behind the petitioner's shop and not from the exact premises mentioned in the licence, by itself, cannot lead to an inference of criminal involvement, particularly when the petitioner was admittedly carrying on a lawful business under a valid licence.”Allowing a revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C., the Court set aside the order dated February 25, 2022 passed by the Special Court, Faridkot, which had dismissed the petitioner's plea for discharge and framed charges against him under Section 22(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act.The case arose out of FIR registered at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot. The police intercepted a canter vehicle and recovered 31,020 Lomotil tablets from co-accused Jaspal Singh @ Rinku and Harjinder Singh @ Kala.During investigation, co-accused Harjinder Singh allegedly disclosed that the recovered tablets had been procured from the petitioner, Anil Kaushik, a medical store owner based in Delhi. On the basis of this disclosure statement, the petitioner was nominated as an accused under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.Subsequently, the police searched the petitioner's premises and recovered additional medicines, including Lomotil, Alprazolam and Tramadol-based drugs, from a store room located behind his shop.The petitioner contended that he was implicated solely on the basis of a disclosure statement of a co-accused, which lacks evidentiary value without corroboration and he was a licensed medical dealer authorised to stock and sell the medicines recovered.The medicines were sold in the ordinary course of business against a licence produced by the purchaser, which was later found to be forged without his knowledge. A departmental inquiry conducted by a DSP verified his licence and found him innocent.A supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was filed in his favour, which was ignored by the trial Court.The State argued that a commercial quantity of intoxicant tablets had been recovered and the petitioner was specifically named as the supplier in the disclosure statement.The High Court noted that the petitioner had been nominated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused, without any independent incriminating material linking him to illegal trafficking.It further observed that the petitioner held a valid licence to deal in medicines and a DSP-level inquiry had verified the licence and found it to be genuine.The co-accused had allegedly used forged documents to procure medicines.Rejecting the reasoning of the trial Court, the High Court held that recovery of medicines from the store room behind the shop, instead of the exact licensed premises, cannot by itself lead to an inference of criminal intent.The Court emphasized that mere supply of medicines by a licensed dealer in the ordinary course of business does not attract criminal liability under the NDPS Act unless there is evidence of conscious involvement, knowledge, or intent to engage in illegal trafficking.The Court underscored that there was no material to show conscious knowledge of illegal use of medicines, intentional participation in unlawful activity and deliberate concealment or diversion of drugs.In the absence of such elements, the essential ingredients of offences under the NDPS Act were not made out.The Court allowed the revision petition and held that the order framing charges against the petitioner was unsustainable.The impugned order was set aside qua the petitioner and the petitioner was discharged from the case. Trial to continue against the remaining accused.Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Rohit Hans, DAG, Punjab.Title: Anil Kumar Kaushik v. State of Punjab Order

Recovery From Store Room Behind Shop Not Enough To Infer Criminality: P&H High Court Discharges Licensed Chemist In NDPS Case

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

Recovery From Store Room Behind Shop Not Enough To Infer Criminality: P&H High Court Discharges Licensed Chemist In NDPS Case

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers