Kamlesh Upadhayay vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioners, Kamlesh Upadhyay and Sandeep Kumar Bharadwaj, are accused in a criminal case (FIR No. 11/2024) registered at Police Station Devendra Nagar, Raipur, under Sections 420, 21(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The prosecution alleges seizure of narcotic drugs from co-accused Mohammad Ahmed and Domar @ Pintu, and subsequently from the petitioners based on their memorandum statements. The petitioners contend that the seized contraband (syrups) were from their licensed pharmaceutical businesses, 'Sainath Medicose' and 'Shri Ganesan Pharmaceuticals', and that GST and other relevant taxes had been paid. They argue that the investigating officers were aware of their licensed status and the seizure of crucial documents like licenses, GST bills, and demand orders from the licensed premises, yet these were deliberately omitted from the charge sheet. The petitioners sought quashing of the criminal proceedings.

Held

The Court held that the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) operate in addition to the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Court referred to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, which establishes that the NDPS Act is a special law dealing with a specific class of drugs and its provisions operate in addition to the general provisions of the 1940 Act. Consequently, the proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities against the petitioners under the NDPS Act were not considered illegal or arbitrary. The Court noted that the charge sheet had already been filed, charges framed, and the trial had progressed substantially. Therefore, the Court found no good ground to interfere at that stage and dismissed both petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the NDPS Act are liable to be quashed, considering their contention that the seized substances were part of their licensed pharmaceutical business and that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, should govern the matter, particularly in light of alleged suppression of material facts by the investigating authorities (Respondents No. 4 and 5)? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioners argued that as licensed pharmaceutical businesses, any violation should be dealt with under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Rules, 1945, by the Drug Inspector, not the police under the NDPS Act. - They contended that the investigating officers (Respondents No. 4 and 5) were aware of their licensed status and the documentation proving legitimate sale and tax payment (GST), but deliberately suppressed this information from the charge sheet. - They relied on the principle that a special law (NDPS Act) should not override a general law (Drugs and Cosmetics Act) when the subject matter falls squarely within the latter's purview, especially concerning licensed entities. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment regarding the specific legal contention of the petitioners concerning the applicability of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act versus the NDPS Act. However, the judgment's conclusion implies that the State maintained the validity of the NDPS Act proceedings.