Final week, the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom granted an interim keep on arrest to the alleged kingpin, Shubham Jaiswal and some different co-accused in reference to an FIR lodged underneath the Narcotic Medication and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in regards to the suspected Codeine Cough Syrup Racket.
Varied individuals, together with Shubham Jaiswal, approached the Excessive Courtroom underneath Article 226 of the Structure of India in search of quashing of FIRs lodged towards them underneath Sections 8, 21 & 25 of the NDPS Act for alleged sale-purchase of codeine-based cough syrups for the needs of intoxication and with out sustaining correct documentation for the identical.
It has been pleaded that the investigation is with out jurisdiction because the provisions of the NDPS Act don’t apply within the case of codeine-based cough syrups because the similar are neither a narcotic drug nor a psychotropic substance.
The petitioner submitted that Phensedyl Cough Syrup, manufactured by Abbott Well being Care Pvt. Ltd., is a Schedule ‘H1’ drug outlined underneath D & C Guidelines. Phensedyl accommodates “Codeine” (about 0.2%), which, in isolation, could be a Narcotic Substance.
Additional, it has been argued that underneath the Notification issued underneath Part 2(xi)(b) dated 14.11.1985 (Serial No. 35) issued by the Central Authorities within the Official Gazette, extracted above, a dilution or preparation with a specified restrict of Codeine per dosage unit can not be thought of to be a ‘manufactured drug’.
It thus follows that if provisions of Part 2(xiv), and a pair of(xi)(b) are thought of in context of notification dated 14.11.1985, it needs to be concluded that codeine-based cough syrups, per se wouldn’t be a “Narcotic drug” or “Manufactured Drug”.
Since time was quick for respondents to make their submissions, the bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Achal Sachdev noticed thus:
“Nonetheless, because the discovered counsel for the petitioners has said that each one the petitioners are keen to cooperate within the investigation, we offer that the investigation might proceed, however the petitioners shall not be arrested until the subsequent date of itemizing”.
The Courtroom additionally famous that the petitioners shall seem earlier than the Investigating Officers as and when known as. The instances are subsequent listed on 17th December.
Mr Nipun Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Naman Agrawal and Mr Vivek Chaturvedi, appeared for the petitioners.
Leave a Reply