MADAN, J. - (1.) BY this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05/12/2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota (Special Judge NDPS Cases) whereby the accused has been charged for offence punishable u/s. 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1980 (for short "ndps Act" ).
(2.) THE prosecution of the present petitioner arose when one Barkat Ali (who has been charged for offence punishable u/s. 8/27 of the NDPS Act under the impugned order dated 5/12/2000) was produced before SHO Vigyan Nagar Kota by Tarachand Constable upon having been found in possession of Diazepam injection with one syringe which was then recovered and during interrogation, he (Barkat Ali) disclosed to have purchased the seized injection from Shiba Medical Store, of which undisputedly Sultan Zahid (petitioner herein) is the Proprietor and as a consequence of interrogation and investigation, the petitioner's medical store (supra) was searched and during which diazepam injection, pentazesin lected (Fortvin) and phenergan hydrochloride injection were got recovered at his instance, but without having any license to keep in possession and thereby the petitioner was made an accused alongwith co-accused Barkat Ali, by filing challan before the concerned Magistrate who committed the case for trial to the Special Judge (NDPS Cases) who took cognizance and charged the petitioner for offence u/sec. 8/22 of the NDPS Act by the impugned judgment. Hence this revision petition. Shri Pratap Singh Sirohi learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been a Pharmacist having Drug Licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and therefore he has been running a medical store authorisedly in the name and style of Shiba Medical Store. In this view of the matter, it is the case of the petitioner that being authorised licence holder he was competent to keep and sell the injections alleged to have been recovered during investigation as medicines which are included in the schedules attached to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and that being so the recovered & seized substances were not at all contraband being covered under Rules 64 & 66 besides Schedule I to the NDPS Rules, 1985 and, therefore, there was no evidence to prima-facie establish commission of offence punishable under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act, for which he has illegally been charged and the trial Court has committed an error of law in having taken cognizance for commission of offence under the NDPS Act against the petitioner. During the course of arguments, Shri Sirohi has produced Xerox copies of license No. 2503 and 2504 dated 14/11/94 and Form No. 21c and Schedule H to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Mr. Madhav Mitra learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition by contending that there was sufficient evidence against the petitioner to prima facie establish commission of offence, under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act and that apart whatever the material produced before this Court cannot be meticulously considered and appreciated at the stage of framing of the charge and in this view of the matter the impugned order framing the charge against the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or having any error of jurisdiction resulting in miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. After having considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the impugned order of charge framing against the petitioner, prima facie I am of the opinion that this revision petition is not maintainable at all. Xerox Copy of Form 21-C produced before this Court though pertains allegedly to renewal for a period from 1/1/1998 to 31/12/1999 but without expressing any opinion on merits as to its admissibility in evidence, curiously enough it does not bear seal and name of issuing and signing authority nor contains the date of issue though letter forwarding it contains despatch No. 239 dated 31/1/98. That apart this pertains to categories of particular of drugs in Schedule C & C (1), as has rightly been pointed out by the trial Court under impugned order. Admissibility of these documents cannot be adjudged at this stage and can be done only after leading evidence to prove them during trial. Moreover, had they been in existence it is surprised as to why they had not been produced or shown during the impugned search and recovery during investigation. Similarly the question as to whether the contraband articles seized and recovered during search of the medical store of the petitioner are covered by the definitions of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances as provided by the NDPS Act or the Rules made thereunder can only be examined by the trial Court for which the prosecution has right to lead evidence during trial. At the stage of cognizance and framing of the charge the trial Court has only to consider as to whether on the basis of material produced alongwith challan or charge sheet prima facie any case is made out for commission of offence against the accused or not. Sufficiency or insufficiency or inadmissibility of evidence cannot be meticulously considered nor any opinion on merit can be arrived at. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case as to the commission of offence and the sufficiency of the material produced alongwith charge sheet by the police, I am firmly of the opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity or error of law or jurisdiction of the trial Court in having charged the petitioner for offence under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act and I find no merit in any of contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner so as to call for any interference by invoking revisional jurisdiction. As a result of the discussion made above, this criminal revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 5/12/2000 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, (Addl. Sess. Judge No. 2), Kota) in Sessions Case No. 2/98 whereby the petitioner has been charged for offence u/s. 8/22 of the NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and get it completed as early as possible but not beyond six months. The prosecution agency as well as the defence both will cooperate each other in producing their evidence before the Court without any delay. A copy of the order be sent to the trial court by way of compliance. . ;