This judgement ranked 1 in the hitlist.
Rupesh Singla v. State of Punjab (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 615486
2014(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 284
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Before :- Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
C.R.M. No. M-22171 of 2006. D/d. 21.8.2014.
Rupesh Singla and another - Petitioners
State of Punjab - Respondent
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate.
For the State :- Mr. J.S. Sekhon, AAG Punjab.
A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Sections 21, 22, 8 and 80 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Rules, 1985, Rules 64 and 66 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 1993, Order 3 - Heavy commercial quantity of manufactured drug (43500 tablets of Momolit; 400 Capsules-Spasmo Parmin; 144 Capsules-Spasmo Proxyvon; 5000 Tablets of Diazepam; 400 Tablets of Ampax; 450 Tablets of Altrax; 4150 Tablets of Carisoma; 720 Capsules of Hypvin; 59 bottles of syrup Rexcof and 1000 Tablets of Kuedya) recovered from accused - Accused had no licence - It would constitute an offence punishable under NDPS Act.
[Paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 24]
B. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Sections 21, 22 and 8 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of COntrolled Substances) Order, 1993, Order 3 - Recovery of manufactured drugs - Whether exact quantity (total mass) of the contraband recovered from offenders or percentage of Narcotic drugs/Psychotropic Substances seized is to be taken into consideration in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations - Held :-
(i) The entire quantity of Narcotic Drug/Psychotropic Substance shall be taken into consideration for deciding as to whether the same is a small quantity or a commercial quantity or an intermediate quantity for the purpose of conviction and sentence will be imposed accordingly. 2014(1) RCR (Crl.) 478, 2013(1) RCR (Criminal) 428, relied.
C. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Sections 21, 22, 8 and 80 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 1993, Order 3 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Rules, 1985, Rule 4 - Whether Manufactures, Chemists, Wholesale license holders under the Drugs and Cosmetics, 1940 possessing controlled substances and manufactured drugs/prescripttion drugs are also required to comply with the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act, Rules and Order 1993 for their possession - Held, (yes). 2014(1) RCR (Crl.) 478, 2013(1) RCR (Criminal) 428, relied.
[Paras 20 and 22]
D. Interpretation of Statutes - The Court is under an obligation to expound the law as it exists and leave the remedy to the legislature, even if harsh conclusions result from such exposition - Equally, it is now well recognized proposition of law that mandatory provisions and command of law have to be complied with in the same manner as envisaged and mandated by any statute and it cannot be interpreted otherwise.
Cases Referred :
Balkar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2013(1) Law Herald 70.
Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 560 : 2011(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 373 : (2011)4 Supreme Court Cases 441.
Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi v. State of Punjab, 2014(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 953 : CRM No. M-13140 of 2012. D/d. 31.1.2014.
Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 179.
Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 907.
Parmanand v. State of Haryana, 2014(1) RCR(Criminal) 478.
Rajeev Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 846.
Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92.
State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1991(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 383 : AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604.
State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar, 1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 752.
U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi, 2009(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 733 : 2009(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 462 : (2009)2 SCC 147.
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2013(1) RCR (Criminal) 428.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out from the record, are that on 7.1.2006, a police party headed by ASI Tarlochan Singh was present at Bus-stand, Chakerian Road, Raipur, in connection with patrolling and checking of suspected persons. Meanwhile, he received a secret information to the effect that petitioners Rupesh Singla and Rohit Singla sons of Roop Chand Singla, have loaded a large number of intoxicating drugs, in their white coloured Maruti car, bearing registration No. CH01X- 9259 and were going to village Makha, Raipur, to sell the same. Believing the information to be true, the police has sent the writing (ruqqa) to the police station, arranged a Barrier (Nakabandi) and DSP Sardulgarh was also informed accordingly. In pursuance of the secret information, the car of petitioners was stopped. Having completed all the codal/statutory formalities, it was searched and 43500 tablets of Momolit; 400 Capsules-Spasmo Parmin; 144 Capsules-Spasmo Proxyvon; 5000 Tablets of Diazepam; 400 Tablets of Ampax; 450 Tablets of Altrax; 4150 Tablets of Carisoma; 720 Capsules of Hypvin; 59 bottles of syrup Rexcof and 1000 Tablets of Kuedya, containing commercial quantity of salt/narcotic substances were recovered from the possession of petitioners without any permit or licence.
2. Thereafter, the pointed drugs were taken into possession by the police, vide recovery memos. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of recovery of commercial quantity of indicated drugs and narcotic substances, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by way of FIR No. 3 dated 7.1.2006 (Annexure P3), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 21 & 22 of, The Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NDPS Act") by the police of Police Station Jaurkian, District Mansa.
3. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of Special/trial Court, the petitioners have preferred the instant petition, to quash the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that they were jointly running the business of wholesale druggists and chemists under the name and style of Roop Medical Store, Mansa. The drugs license (Annexure P1) was issued in the name of their father Roop Chand Singla. He has purchased the recovered drugs from different firms, by means of invoice/cash memos (Annexures P5 to P11). The petitioners claimed that if the prosecution case is taken to be true and accepted as such in its entirety, even then, no offences in question are made out against them. Since they have been falsely implicated in this case by the police, so, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P3) and all consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted here-in-above.
4. The respondent State contested the petition and filed the reply by way of affidavit of Satpal Singh DSP Sardulgarh, inter-alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the petition, locus standi of petitioners and cause of action to file the instant petition. The prosecution claimed that the drugs/psychotropic substance recovered from them, duly fall in the category of Narcotic Drugs, for which, the petitioners have no license under the NDPS Act. Therefore, they have committed the offences punishable u/ss 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition of facts, suffice it to say that the respondent-State has reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR (Annexure P3). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that the State has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this connection.
6. However, the learned counsel has contended with some amount of vehemence that father of the petitioners was running a Chemist shop & holding a drugs license (Annexure P1) and since the manufactured drugs were recovered from the possession of petitioners, so, no offences under the NDPS Act are made out against them. The argument is that as the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case by the police, therefore, the impugned criminal prosecution is liable to be quashed in this relevant connection. Initially, at a cursory glance, the submissions of learned counsel for petitioners appear somewhat attractive, but at the same time, when the same were critically examined in relation to the law, then, I cannot help observing that neither the indicated arguments are tenable nor the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab 2011(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 560 : 2011(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 373 : (2011)4 Supreme Court Cases 441 and brief orders/bail orders of Coordinate Benches of this Court in cases Balkar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2013(1) Law Herald 70; Rajeev Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 846; Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 907; State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar 1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 752 and Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 179 are at all applicable to the facts of this case, wherein the orders were passed on the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of those cases. Moreover, the provisions of Sections 2, 8, 9 & 80 of the NDPS Act and Rules 64 & 66 of the NDPS Rules and relevant rules framed by the State of Punjab were not involved. Therefore, the same would not advance the cause of petitioners in any manner at this stage for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.
7. At the very outset, it cannot and indeed should not be disputed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively held, in a celebrated judgment in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 383 : AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92, that the criminal prosecution can only be quashed in rarest of rare case at the initial stage as per the following conditions :-
(i) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code.
(iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(iv) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.
(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
8. Not only that, exhibiting the great concerns with regard to public health, Article 47 of the Constitution of India mandates and postulates that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs, which are injurious to health. This Court has also noticed the scenario of drug abuse in this part of the country in case Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2013(1) RCR (Criminal) 428, as under :-
"Drugs of abuse scenario in the State of Punjab:
Disturbing scenario of drug abuse in the State of Punjab, is appearing in the various newspapers. "The Hindu" and the "Tehelka News Magazine" have reported such drug menace extensively. An extract from the "Tehelka News Magazine", Vol. 9, Issue 15, dated 14th April 2012, is as follows :-
"75% of the youth. Every third student. 65% of all families in Punjab are in the throes of a sweeping drug addiction. With little or no hope in sight."
"Angarh is just one symptom of a monstrous crises: a staggering 75 per cent of Punjab's youth is hooked to drug abuse, a figure the state government itself submitted to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2009. One out of every three college students in the state is on drugs. In Doaba, Majha and Malwa- regions particularly affected- almost every third family has at least one addict. Every kind of drug is readily available here. From smack, heroin and synthetic drugs to over-the-counter drugs like Buprenorphine, Parvon Spas, Codex Syrup and spurious Coaxil and Phenarimine injections. This is a state where 30 per cent of all jail inmates have been arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the DGP has kicked up a political storm by saying it is impossible for him to control the flow of drugs into his prisons. But the sharp irony is, this matters little because, like Angarh, scores of other towns and villages in Punjab are more notorious than any other prison cell."
9. Sequally, no one can lose sight of the fact that the tendency & frequency of selling such drugs for the purpose of intoxication by the Chemists without any valid licence/permit under the NDPS Act for illegal gain, ruining the health of the youths, have been tremendously increasing day-by-day in our society, which need to be curbed with heavy hands. The NDPS Act was legislated to amend the existing laws relating to Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances and to control the menace of drug abuse, which is adversely affecting the social fabric of the society, containing specific provisions and special procedure. In order to carry out the purpose, aim and object of the NDPS Act, the Central Government has framed the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act & Rules, 1985, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances(Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 1993 and subsequent Relevant Rules and Orders framed thereunder, through the medium of subsequent Notifications.
10. Likewise, Chapter III of the NDPS Act deals with prohibition, control and regulation of narcotic drugs & psychotropic substance. Section 8 (c) posits that no person shall produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder, in a case where any such provision imposes any requirement, by way of licence, permit or authorisation also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorization.
11. Similarly, sections 9 & 9-A empower the Central Government and Section 10 empowers the State Governments to permit, control and regulate the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances. Sections 21 & 22 envisage that whoever in contravention of any provision of the NDPS Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufactured drug, shall be punished therein. Similarly, the word "manufacture" has been defined in clause (x) of Section 2, whereas according to clause (xi), the "manufactured drug" mean, all coca derivatives, medicinal cannabis, opium derivatives and poppy straw concentrate and any other narcotic substance or preparation which the Central Government may, having regard to the available information as to its nature or to a decision, if any, under any international Convention, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a manufactured drug. Clause (xx) defines "preparation", in relation to a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, means any one or more such drugs or substances in dosage form or any solution or mixture, in whatever physical state, containing one or more such drugs or substances. According to clause (xxiii) "psychotropic substance" means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material included in the list of psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule.
12. Not only that, Rule 64 of the relevant rules provides that no person shall manufacture, possess, transport, import inter-State, export inter-State, sell, purchase, consume or use any of the psychotropic substances specified in Schedule 1. Rule 66 contemplates that no person shall possess any psychotropic substance for any of the purposes covered by the 1945 Rules, unless he is lawfully authorized to possess such substance for any of the said purposes under these rules. However, there is an exemption of possession with regard to the research, institution or a hospital or dispensary mentioned therein.
13. In the same sequence, Order 3 of the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 1993 escalates that every person, who manufactures or distributes or sells or imports or exports or consumes any controlled substance shall maintain daily accounts of his activities in Form 1 or Form 2, prescribed under the NDPS Act, which will be preserved for a period of two years from the date of last entry in the register and shall report to the Director General of Narcotics Control Bureau in this relevant direction. Section 80 of the NDPS Act specifically provides that the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 or the rules made thereunder.
14. Equally, it is now well established principle of interpretation of statute, that the words of an enactment are to be given their ordinary, popular and natural meaning. If such meaning is clear and unambiguous, the effect should be given to a provision of a statute in the same manner whatever may be the consequences. The basis of this principle is that the object of all interpretations being to know what the legislature intended, whatever was the intention of the legislature has been expressed by it through words, which are to be interpreted accordingly, because the intention of the legislature can be deduced only from the language, through which, it has expressed itself. If the language of a statute is clear, the only duty of the Court is to give effect to it and the Court has no business to look into the consequences of such interpretation. The Court is under an obligation to expound the law as it exists and leave the remedy to the legislature, even if harsh conclusions result from such exposition. Equally, it is now well recognized proposition of law that mandatory provisions and command of law have to be complied with in the same manner as envisaged and mandated by any statute and it cannot be interpreted otherwise.
15. Above being the legal position and material on record, now the short and significant question, though important, which engages the immediate attention of this Court and arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the indicated manufactured drugs recovered from the possession of the petitioners, without any valid licence, would constitute the offences punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act or not ?
16. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative in this context.
17. Indisputably, the huge commercial quantity of pointed Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances was recovered from the possession of the petitioners. It is not a matter of dispute that the salts contained in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances recovered from them, squarely fall within the ambit of Tables/Schedules attached to the Notifications of 1985, 1993 and subsequent Notifications issued under the NDPS Act. Moreover, it remains an unfolded mystery as to why the petitioners were feeling shy and afraid of, to obtain the licence/permit under the NDPS Act to possess/sell the manufactured drugs and to maintain the record in this relevant connection.
18. Therefore, a plain and meaningful reading of the indicated provisions of the NDPS Act and relevant Rules framed thereunder would reveal that whosoever shall manufacture, possess, sell or transport etc. any psychotropic substances without any permit, licence or authorization by the competent authority, would be liable to be prosecuted under this Act. Every person is required to comply with the provisions of the NDPS Act, indicated relevant Rules and subsequent Notifications. They have to comply with the terms & conditions provided under Order 3 of the NDPS Order, 1993. Concededly, the violations of such mandatory provisions are not only patently illegal, but are punishable under Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and relevant Rules as well.
19. At the same time, the mere fact that father of petitioners was running a Chemist shop with licence under The Drugs & Cosmetics Act/Rules and the manufactured drugs were recovered from the possession of the petitioners, ipso facto is not a ground, much less cogent, to exonerate them from such grave violations and will not operate as a bar to prosecute them in the instant case, as envisaged under Section 80 of the NDPS Act. To my mind, in case, the contrary contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners-accused are accepted as such, in that eventuality, the very purpose, aim and object of the NDPS Act, would pale into insignificance and thereby inculcate & perpetuate injustice to the society at large. Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith at this stage that no offences punishable under the NDPS Act are made out against the petitioners and they cannot escape their penal liability in this relevant context. Thus, taking into consideration the recovery of heavy commercial quantity of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances from their possession, to me, prima facie, the case for the commission of offences in question under the NDPS Act is made out against them. Hence, the contrary submissions raised on the behalf of petitioners "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances.
20. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. In the wake of lengthy arguments of learned counsel for petitioners, the following two questions do arise for determination in the present petition :-
(i) Whether exact quantity (total mass) of the contraband recovered from offenders or percentage of Narcotic drugs/ Psychotropic Substances seized is to be taken into consideration in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations? If so what is its effect.
(ii)Whether Manufacturers, Chemists, Wholesale license holders under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 possessing controlled substances and manufactured drugs/ prescripttion drugs are also required to comply with the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act, Rules and Order 1993 for their possession? If so what is its effect.
21. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, identical questions came to be decided by this Court in Vinod Kumar's case (supra) and in case Parmanand (2) and others v. State of Haryana, 2014(1) RCR(Criminal) 478. Having considered the indicated relevant provisions of the NDPS Act, the Drugs & Cosmetics Act and relevant Rules framed thereunder, it was ruled as under :-
Re: Question No. (i)
i) As the contraband seized is either a mixture or a preparation with or without a neutral material, of any Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance falling within the scope of entry No. 239 of the notification dated 19.10.2001 issued in S.O.No. 1055(E) of the Central Government. It is absolutely necessary to conduct Pure Content Test to ascertain the exact quantity of the Narcotic Drug/Psychotropic Substance contained in the said mixture or preparation. In the absence of Pure Content Test, the whole contraband seized shall not be considered as such. However, in all the cases registered on or after 17.11.2009, there is no necessity to conduct pure content test to ascertain the exact quantity of Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and Manufactured Drugs. The whole contraband seized shall be considered as such even if it comes within the definition of Entry No. 239.
ii) In the case of a contraband, which is neither a mixture nor a preparation falling within the sweep of entry No. 239 and if the contraband is a Narcotic Drug/Psychotropic Substance simplicitor, there is no need for Purity Test and in such cases, the entire quantity of Narcotic Drug/Psychotropic Substance shall be taken into consideration for deciding as to whether the same is a small quantity or a commercial quantity or an intermediate quantity for the purpose of conviction and sentence will be imposed accordingly.
22. As regards the question No. 2 is concerned, it was held that the manufacturers of manufactured drugs or prescripttion drugs, chemists, wholesale license holders under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are required to comply with the provisions of NDPS Act, Rules and Order, 1993 for the possession of narcotic drugs, psychotropic and controlled substances, irrespective of their licence, failing which, they would be liable to be prosecuted under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
23. Likewise, the same very view was again reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of cases, decided vide main 2014(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 953 : CRM No. M-13140 of 2012 titled as "Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi v. State of Punjab" decided on 31.1.2014.
24. As indicated here-in-above that commercial quantity of 43500 tablets of Momolit; 400 Capsules-Spasmo Parmin; 144 Capsules- Spasmo Proxyvon; 5000 Tablets of Diazepam; 400 Tablets of Ampax; 450 Tablets of Altrax; 4150 Tablets of Carisoma; 720 Capsules of Hypvin; 59 bottles of syrup Rexcof; 1000 Tablets of Kuedya, containing commercial quantity of salt/narcotic substance, were recovered from the possession of petitioners without any permit or license and in view of answer to question No. 1 mentioned above, the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Harjit Singh's case (supra) would not come to the rescue of the petitioners in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
25. Faced with the grave situation, the next celebrated arguments of the learned counsel that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case by the police and there is no cogent evidence on record against them, lack merit as well. As mentioned here-in-above, there are direct allegations that huge commercial quantity of drugs in question was recovered from their possession. Prima facie, there is sufficient evidence on record that the petitioners have violated the provisions of NDPS Act & relevant Rules, in order to ruin the health of society at large. On the contrary, it does not appeal to reasons as to why the police will plant such a huge commercial quantity of indicated drugs to falsely implicate the petitioners in the present case without any cogent motive. Moreover, whether the invoice/bills (Annexures P5 to P11), other documents attached with the petition are genuine, valid or otherwise and other contentions, now sought to be urged on their behalf and what are their affects, inter-alia, would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. In case, all such intricate questions, which require determination by the trial Court, after receipt of evidence of the parties, are to be decided by this Court, in the absence of any evidence in this respect, in the garb of petition under section 482 Cr.PC, then, to my mind, the sanctity of the trial would amount to nullify the statutory procedure of trial of criminal case as envisaged under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is not legally permissible. Indeed, it is now well settled principle of law that the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, the accusation would not be sustained, are the functions of the trial Judge to do so. The High Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of its power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Reliance in this connection can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi and another, 2009(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 733 : 2009(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 462 : (2009)2 SCC 147.
26. Therefore, if the entire indicated material and factors are analyzed in relation to the ratio of law, then, to me, no one can escape in recording an irresistible conclusion that the Bench mark set out in the aforesaid judgments and essential ingredients for quashing the impugned FIR (Annexure P-3) are miserably lacking at this initial stage of the case.
27. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
28. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & material, emanating from the record, as depicted herein- above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
29. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded only for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and not otherwise.