Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has discharged a licensed medicine dealer in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Justice H S Grewal pronounced the order on Friday, discharging petitioner Anil Kumar Kaushik, who had filed a revision petition seeking to set aside the order passed by the special judge in Faridkot on February 25, 2022.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, proprietor of a medical store in Delhi, sought discharge from a case where an FIR was filed under the NDPS Act on May 23, 2021, at the Kotkapura City police station in Faridkot district. According to the petitioner, his name was added to the FIR based on the disclosure of Harjinder Singh alias Kala, who was arrested along with Jaspal Singh alias Rinku on the same day for carrying 31,020 intoxicant tablets in a light commercial vehicle near Mandi Gate, Kotkapura.
Arguments by the Petitioner
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client had been falsely implicated and had no connection with the alleged offence. The counsel argued that the petitioner was nominated solely on the disclosure made by a co-accused, which carries no evidentiary value unless corroborated by independent material. The petitioner maintained that there was no independent evidence linking him to the recovery from the offending vehicle, and therefore, the essential ingredients for invoking the NDPS Act were not established.
Court's Observation
After considering the arguments, the court observed that the mere supply of medicines by a licensed dealer in the ordinary course of business, without any material showing conscious knowledge, deliberate concealment, or intentional involvement in illegal activity, could not by itself make out a criminal case. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of the petitioner's knowledge or intent regarding the unlawful use of the medicines.
Order and Implications
Allowing the revision petition, Justice Grewal set aside the order of the Faridkot special judge and discharged the petitioner from the FIR. The trial will continue against the remaining accused in the case. This judgment underscores the principle that licensed professionals acting within the bounds of their business cannot be held criminally liable without proof of guilty knowledge or participation in illegal activities.
