Dubraj Singh Patel vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitions are dismissed. The reasoning is based on the interpretation of the NDPS Act, 1985, and its subsequent amendments and rules. The Court noted that while Notification S.O. 826(E) dated 14.11.1985 declared certain narcotic substances as manufactured drugs, including codeine, the introduction of Section 9(1)(a)(va) by the NDPS (Amendment) Act, 2014, empowered the Central Government to permit and regulate the manufacture, possession, transport, sale, and purchase of "essential narcotic drugs." Exercising this power, the Central Government issued a notification on 05.05.2015, adding Chapter-VA to the NDPS Rules, 1985. Rule 52A of this chapter specifically regulates the possession of essential narcotic drugs. Entry No. 2 in the Table under Rule 52A lists methyl morphine (commonly known as 'Codeine') and its salts as essential narcotic drugs, with a permissible quantity of 2000 milligrammes for registered medical practitioners, subject to specific conditions. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Sanjeev V. Deshphande, which held that dealing in narcotic drugs for medicinal purposes does not automatically lift the embargo under Section 8(c) unless it is done in the manner and extent provided by the Act and Rules. The Court concluded that violations of Rule 52A would attract penal provisions under the NDPS Act, implying that the petitioners' possession of the cough syrup, if not in strict compliance with Rule 52A, constituted an offence. Therefore, the framing of charges was upheld.

Facts

The petitioners, including Dubraj Singh Patel (a wholesale druggist), Pappu Sahu, Jitendra Gupta, Paras Kumar Rawat (driver), and Punit Kewat, filed criminal revision petitions challenging the framing of charges under Sections 8(C) and 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that on July 16, 2020, a vehicle carrying 90 boxes of Onerex cough syrup containing codeine was intercepted. The petitioners claimed that Dubraj Singh Patel, as a licensed druggist, was authorized to transport the syrup, and they had a valid GST invoice and bilty for the transaction. They alleged that the FIR was registered after an illegal demand was not met. The dispute centers around the classification and legality of possessing cough syrup containing codeine.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cough syrup containing codeine, purchased by a licensed wholesale druggist with a valid GST invoice and bilty, constitutes a "manufactured drug" or "essential narcotic drug" under the NDPS Act, 1985, making its possession an offence under Section 8(C) read with Section 21(C) of the Act, given the notification dated 14.11.1985 and subsequent amendments including Rule 52A of the NDPS Rules, 1985? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that Dubraj Singh Patel, as a licensed wholesale druggist, was authorized to transport the cough syrup. They presented a GST invoice and bilty to support their claim of a legitimate business transaction. They argued that their license was valid for selling Onerex cough syrup as codeine falls under Schedule H and that the concentration of codeine in the syrup was within the permissible limits as per the notification dated 14.11.1985, citing the case of Shiv Kumar Gupta vs. State of M.P. to support their contention that no offence under Section 8 read with Section 21 of the NDPS Act was made out. Respondent's arguments: The State supported the framing of charges, arguing that the contraband drugs were purchased from Delhi and intended for Sidhi, but were seized in Rewa. They questioned the validity of the bilty and the license to keep the contraband at Dabra, asserting that no error was committed by the trial court in framing the charges.