SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) Heard. Perused the material available on record.
(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor has drawn the Court's attention to the Judgment dated 03.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar : Criminal Appeal No.1512/2018 wherein it was laid down as under:- "10. Further, Section 21 provides for punishment for contraventions in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations and Section 22 provides for punishment for contraventions in relation to psychotropic substances. Both the above provisions provide for the imposition of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and the imposition of a fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may be extended to two lakh rupees, if the recovered substance amounts to commercial quantity. However, the proviso appended thereto empowers the Court, with a discretionary power to impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees for reasons to be recorded in the judgment. 11. In the present case, the accused? 'respondents were found in bulk possession of manufactured drugs without any valid authorization. The counsel on behalf of the appellant? 'State has extensively stressed that the actions of the accused? 'Respondents amounts to clear violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S Act as it clearly prohibits possession of narcotic substances except for medicinal or scientific purposes. In furtherance of the same, the counsel on behalf of the appellant? 'State has put emphasis on the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Union of India vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra), wherein it was held that: "25. In other words, dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is permissible only when such dealing is for medical purposes or scientific purposes. Further, the mere fact that the dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is for a medical or scientific purpose does not by itself lift the embargo created Under Section 8(c). Such a dealing must be in the manner and extent provided by the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders made thereunder. Sections 9 and 10 enable the Central and the State Governments respectively to make rules permitting and regulating various aspects (contemplated under Section 8(c), of dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 26. The Act does not contemplate framing of rules for prohibiting the various activities of dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Such prohibition is already contained in Section 8(c). It only contemplates of the framing of Rules for permitting and regulating any activity of dealing in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances (emphasis supplied)"? 12. In the present appeals before us, the trial courts after analyzing the evidence placed before them, held the accused Respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt and convicted them for offences committed under Section 21 and Section 22 of the N.D.P.S Act. 13. The counsels for the accused? 'respondents have strongly supported the judgment of the High Court wherein it was held that, since the present matters deal with manufactured drugs the present respondents should be tried for the violation of provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 14. However, we are unable to agree on the conclusion reached by the High Court for reasons stated further. First, we note that Section 80 of the N.D.P.S Act, clearly lays down that application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is not barred, and provisions of N.D.P.S. Act can be applicable in addition to that of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The statute further clarifies that the provisions of the N.D.P.S Act are not in derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This Court in the case of Union of India vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra), has held that "35....essentially the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 deals with various operations of manufacture, sale, purchase etc. of drugs generally whereas Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with a more specific class of drugs and, therefore, a special law on the subject. Further the provisions of the Act operate in addition to the provisions of 1940 Act. (emphasis supplied)"? 15. The aforesaid decision further clarifies that, the N.D.P.S Act, should not be read in exclusion to Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Additionally, it is the prerogative of the State to prosecute the offender in accordance with law. In the present case, since the action of the accused? 'Respondents amounted to a prima? 'facie violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S Act, they were charged under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S Act. 16. In light of above observations, we find that decision rendered by the High Court holding that the accused? 'respondents must be tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 instead of the N.D.P.S Act, as they were found in possession of the manufactured drugs, does not hold good in law. Further, in the present case, the accused? 'respondents had approached the High Court seeking suspension of sentence. However, in granting the aforesaid relief, the High Court erroneously made observations on the merits of the case while the appeals were still pending before it."? and urges that the grounds raised in this revision petition seeking quashing/alteration of charge does not sustain in view of the ratio of above judgment.
(3.) In view of the precedent cited by the learned Public Prosecutor, Shri S.K. Verma, Advocate craves liberty to withdraw the instant revision petition, which is dismissed as such.;