1 2025:CGHC:28983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 791 of 2023 Ashish Dev Ratre S/o Shri Dev Prasad Ratre Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Angarkhar Chowki Pantora, Police Station Baloda ..........Applicant, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Acting Through Officer- In- Charge, Police Station Baloda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. K.A. Ansari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Owaish Akhtar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30.06.2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may pleased to quash FIR No.487/2021 (Annexure P-1) and consequent criminal proceedings in Case No.NDPS AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.01 10:25:58 +0530 2 No.11/2021 pending in the Court of Special Judge NDPS (Janjgir-Champa), in exercise of its power under Sction 482 of Cr.P.C, in the interest of justice.” 2. As per prosecution case, on 19.11.2021 a secret information was received from the informant regarding illegally carrying of intoxicating items in his bag by the petitioner. On such information, Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama was prepared and a team was sent for spot inspection, on reaching the spot, petitioner tried to run away from the spot and further was caught by the police authority, thereafter, search was made. During search, 25 nos of Codistar cough syrup of 100 ml, 35 nos of Planokuf syrup of 100 ml each and 700 pieces of Nitrazepam tablets seized from his possession. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Ashish Medical Store of which the petitioner himself is the owner and it is situated by the side of Goyal Super Bazar which is also evident from the crime details and spot map which is part of the charge sheet. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the shop of the petitioner is situated in the market area on the main road leading to Bilaspur and on both sides of the road, many shops are situated. It is unthinkable that the petitioner could have been found on the road at the time when all shops are open. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be supposed to stand near his shop on the road with a bag in his hand with the alleged 3 seized medicines or could have stated in notice under section 91 Cr.P.C. given to him to say that he has no valid papers of the medicines as mentioned in the charge-sheet. Besides, the alleged bag has not been seized. If medicines were in the said bag, then how the informer could have given the information that prohibited medicines were in the bag kept for sale. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner relied upon the document i.e. license issued under Form 20 & 21 under rule 61 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 annexed as Annexure P/5 & P/6. In the said license, nowhere it shows that it is the license granted relating to schedule H-1 drugs. According to the State counsel, it is renewal of license, covered under the original license cover only items of Schedule C and C1. whereas the seized syrup and tablets contains the drugs of H1 category. Learned State counsel further submits that notice under section 91 of Cr.P.C was issued to the petitioner for documents relating to H1 drugs. The petitioner has categorically mentioned in the notice itself that he does not possess any valid documents relating to the seized drugs and same was duly signed by the petitioner. Further, the charge sheet has been filed in the present case against the petitioner. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 6. On perusal of FIR, it reflects that the the petitioner was caught by the police after search was made and during search, 25 Nos. 4 of Codistar cough syrup of 100ml, 35 Nos. of planokuf syrup of 100 ml each and 700 pieces of Nitrazepam tablets were seized from the possession of the petitioner. Subsequently FIR was registered against the petitioner under NDPS Act. Further the petitioner has not been able to produce any document or license for carrying the above seized items. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case; further considering the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed and the petitioner has not produced any documents or license related to drugs seized by the police from the possession of the petitioner, we do not find any good ground to entertain this CRMP. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/ Amardeep