Drug Licence Cannot Shield Chemist From NDPS Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana HC

Holding a valid drug licence does not confer immunity against criminal charges under the narcotics law if psychotropic substances are stored in unlicenced premises. The High Court has clarified that the regulatory framework of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 operates in addition to, and not in derogation of, the stringent provisions governing narcotics offences.

In a single-judge bench ruling, Justice Manisha Batra dismissed a revision petition filed by a chemist challenging the framing of criminal charges for possessing bulk quantities of psychotropic drugs. The Court affirmed the order of the Special Court, Patiala, refusing to discharge the accused chemist.

Court's Observations and Legal Principles

The High Court observed that at the stage of framing charges, meticulous examination of evidence is not required, and the Court only needs to satisfy itself whether a prima facie case exists. Emphasizing that dealing in psychotropic substances is strictly regulated, the Court reaffirmed that regulatory compliance under drug laws does not shield an individual from prosecution if narcotics provisions are violated.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Mere regulation of a drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act does not exclude the applicability of the NDPS Act. It has further been held that dealing in a psychotropic substance is permissible only when it is for medical or scientific purposes and is done in the manner and to the extent permitted by the NDPS Act, the Rules or the conditions of the relevant licence or authorisation. Thus, the mere existence of a drug licence cannot, by itself, be treated as a complete answer to the allegations under the NDPS Act."

Finding no perversity in the Special Court's order, the High Court directed:

"Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed. Interim stay, if any, shall stand vacated. The learned trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law."

Background

The matter originated from an inspection conducted on December 23, 2014, by a Drug Inspector along with police officials at a premises in Devigarh, District Patiala. During the raid, 10 cardboard boxes containing Alprazolam tablets and 1 box containing 140 pouches marked as Microlit/Micron were recovered. The petitioner, who owned M/s Sandhu Medical Store, failed to produce a valid licence covering the specific rented premises where the drugs were stored.

An FIR was registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act read with Section 18-C of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 at Police Station Julkahn. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the Special Court, Patiala, framed charges under Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act against the petitioner on August 31, 2016.

The petitioner challenged the charge-framing order before the High Court, contending that he was a licensed chemist holding valid licences in Forms 20 and 21, and that the drugs were acquired under genuine invoices from authorized dealers. He relied on the decision in Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi and others v. State of Punjab to argue that possession under a drug licence excludes NDPS prosecution. Conversely, the State argued that the licence produced pertained to a different shop name and address, making the bulk possession at the rented premises unauthorized.

Rejecting the petitioner's contentions, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora and others ( "2025 SCC OnLine SC 819": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 452), holding that drug legislation does not derogate from the narcotics law. The High Court concluded that whether the licence covered the place of recovery and whether the possession was strictly for medical purposes were factual issues subject to trial. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed and interim stay vacated.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRR-4362-2016 (O&M)
Case Title: Ranjit Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jasmeet Singh Kang, Advocate and Mr. Sukhsharan Sra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 14085