news details |
|
|
| Court discharges chemist in NDPS case | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 13: 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu VS Bhou today discharged Vikram Kheer, a chemist by profession at the stage of framing charges.
According to the police case that on 05.06.2017, the accused while driving vehicle bearing registration no JK02AX-8118 was intercepted by the police naka party at naka point Domana and was found in possession of 20,000 tablets of Tramore-50. Investigation followed and IO took all formal steps during investigation. Accused had purchased capsules from Jammu & Kashmir Traders, Sainik Colony, Jammu against an amount of Rs 13,020 and he is Chemist by profession holding a valid licence.
2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu VS Bhou after hearing Adv Rohit Lega for the accused person observed that in view of the definition of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance as contained in the Act, it is not in dispute that the drug recovered from the accused was not included in the definition of Narcotic Drug nor it found mention in the schedule of the Act or in schedule 1 of the NDPS rules. So, the recovery of medicine from the possession of accused did not fall under the NDPS Act at the relevant point of time i.e. 05.06.2017 because Tramadol was included in the schedule of the NDPS Act by virtue of Notification No. 1587 dated 26.04.2018. Further, accused possesses a valid chemist licence and he had purchased the drug from Jammu & Kashmir Traders, Sainik Colony against a cost of Rs 13,020 and while he was on his way to his business establishment he was intercepted by the police and arrested. So, there was no occasion for him to enter the drugs on the register and maintain sale record thereof.
2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu upon considering the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and prosecution in this behalf, was of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, as such, he is accordingly discharged for the commission of alleged offence. However, the prosecution is at liberty to prosecute him under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act or under any other law for the time being in force.
--(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
