Joginder Singh And Another vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioners, Joginder Singh and another, sought regular bail in FIR No. 0004 dated 04.01.2025, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act at the Special Task Force, STF Wing, Punjab. The petitioners, licensed manufacturers of medical formulations, supplied medicines to M/s Gauri Ganesh Pharma. They provided GST invoices, e-way bills, transport bilties, and consignee notes as proof of lawful transactions, supported by a purchase order and an agreement where the buyer undertook responsibility for illicit distribution. A spot inspection on 18.01.2025 by police and drug control officers found the petitioners' documents and medicines in order, confirming compliance with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and intimation of sales via email. The petitioners have been in custody since 23.01.2025 and claim no criminal antecedents.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. Regarding the first issue, the Court found no merit in the State's contention about the incorrect email address. It noted that the petitioners used "upfdadrug@gmail.com" because it was the official email address listed on the State Licensing Authority Drug Controller's website as of 28.12.2024. The Court highlighted that the petitioners received an email on 13.01.2025 informing them of the change to the new email ID, indicating that the earlier used email was indeed the valid one at the time of the transaction. For the second issue, the Court found no instructions on record requiring intimation to Kanpur, and perused Annexure P-23, which indicated the Food Safety and Drug Administration office for Uttar Pradesh is located in Lucknow, not Kanpur. Therefore, this contention was also dismissed. On the third issue, concerning the buyer's license, the Court noted the petitioners' argument that verifying the buyer's license was not their duty, especially with the buyer's undertaking in the agreement. The Court also observed that the petitioners had regularly sent emails to the Uttar Pradesh authorities and had not received any communication regarding infirmities in the buyer's license. The Court concluded that no purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners further, considering their compliance with procedures and lack of criminal antecedents. The petitioners were ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and other usual conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners violated the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) by sending intimation emails to an incorrect email address, specifically "upfdadrug@gmail.com" instead of the allegedly correct "fsdadrug-report@up.gov.in"? 2. Whether the petitioners violated the SOP by sending the intimation email to Lucknow instead of Kanpur, as contended by the State? 3. Whether the petitioners are liable for criminal action due to the alleged invalid license of the buyer, M/s Gauri Ganesh Pharma? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued they acted in good faith, using the email address "upfdadrug@gmail.com" which was listed on the official website of the State Licensing Authority Drug Controller as of 28.12.2024. They received an email on 13.01.2025 informing them of a change to the new email ID. They also contended that there was no instruction to send intimation to Kanpur, and the Food Safety and Drug Administration office is in Lucknow. Regarding the buyer's license, they argued it was not their duty to verify it, especially given the buyer's undertaking in the agreement, and that they had received no adverse communication from drug authorities about the buyer's license. They emphasized their compliance with SOPs and lawful business practices. Respondent's Arguments: The State argued that the petitioners failed to adhere to the SOP guidelines by using an invalid email address ("upfdadrug@gmail.com") and by sending emails to Lucknow instead of Kanpur. They also contended that the buyer firm, M/s Gauri Ganesh Pharma, possessed a fake license, thus violating legal provisions.