JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Drugs and Cosmetics Case No.07 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 12.04.2022 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Spl. Judge, Drug and Cosmetics, Ranchi whereby and where under learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Spl. Judge, Drug and Cosmetics, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 18B, 18(c), 28A & 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as well as Section 8(c), 29 & 21(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and directed for issuance of summons against the petitioner. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being a licensee issued license under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 used to sell drugs in violation of the conditions of the license issued and failed to furnish the information sought by the officer and authority exercising the power and discharging the function under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; being the Director (Medicines) of the State of Jharkhand. There are further allegations that the petitioner sold Codeine of 1200 litres consisting of 12,000 bottles of 100ml each, which is in commercial quantity of narcotic drugs and thereby the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the N.D.P.S., Act, 1985 as well, in respect of which prima facie case has also been found by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Spl. Judge, Drug and Cosmetics, Ranchi. 4. On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant-Drug Inspector, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Spl. Judge, Drug and Cosmetics, Ranchi found prima facie case of the said offences and issued the summoning order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Choco syrup containing codeine is not a manufactured drug. Judge, Drug and Cosmetics, Ranchi. 4. On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant-Drug Inspector, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Spl. Judge, Drug and Cosmetics, Ranchi found prima facie case of the said offences and issued the summoning order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Choco syrup containing codeine is not a manufactured drug. It is next submitted that the Drugs Controller General of India has communicated to all State Drugs Controllers that number of cough preparations containing codeine phosphate 10 mg as one of the ingredients do not fall under the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 and the Rules made under the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 and in the absence of any narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance, involved in this case, the penal provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 is not attracted in this case. It is then submitted that though the complainant has claimed in the complaint that the petitioner sold 12,000 bottles of Choco syrup 100ml each on 23.12.2022, but in fact, the same was sold on 23.12.2020 by the petitioner to M/s Baba Kinaram Pharmacy, Varanasi. It is further submitted that the impugned order is not a speaking order and this criminal proceeding is maliciously been instituted with ulterior motive, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that the petitioner indulged in illegal business of selling narcotic drugs in the guise of a drug under the license taken by him under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that the petitioner indulged in illegal business of selling narcotic drugs in the guise of a drug under the license taken by him under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is next submitted that the undisputed facts remains that after being detected by the Director (Medicines), State of Jharkhand that the petitioner is indulging in illegal business of narcotic drugs containing codeine of 1200 litres which roughly amounts to 1092 kg which falls under the commercial quantity and the petitioner was found locking his shop for months together and in spite of repeated reminders being given to him to furnish the information sought for by the Director of Medicines, State of Jharkhand, vide its letter dated 25.01.2021 within a period of seven days, neither the petitioner responded to the said letter issued to him nor provided the information sought for within seven days from 25.01.2021; rather continuously closed his shop in the name and style of Varun Pharmacy and non-furnishing of information sought by the Director of Medicines, State of Jharkhand within the period of seven days, as sought for by it, without requesting for any further extension of time to provide the information, itself to constitute the offence punishable under Section 28A read with Section 18B of the Drugs and Cosmetics, Act 1940. It is next submitted that as the petitioner indulged in selling narcotic drugs in violation of the conditions of the license granted to him, which was not for narcotic drugs containing codeine in commercial quantity, the offence punishable under Section 27(d) read with Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act is also made out. It is then submitted that as per note (4) of the table of the NDPS Act, 1985 prepared vide Section 2(xxiii-a) and vii(a) of the said act, the quantity relating to respective drugs shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or any one or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters, ethers and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just its pure drug content. So, it is submitted by the learned Spl.P.P. that in a particular bottle, the amount of codeine may be in negligible quantity but if the weight of the contents there of is to be taken as the entire codeine, hence, the same comes under commercial quantity being of 1092 kg. It is further submitted that it being a settled principle of law that a notification or circular cannot override any statutory provision, so in case of any conflict between the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 and any circular issued by the Central Government, the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 shall prevail but not the circular and as per the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985, selling of codeine in commercial quantity amounts to an offence under the penal provisions of NDPS Act, 1985, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum- Spl. Judge, Drug and Cosmetics, Ranchi in finding prima facie case in respect of the penal offences of the NDPS Act, 1985, as well. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that the undisputed facts remains that the Director of Medicines, State of Jharkhand vide its letter dated 25.01.2021, sought in exercise of the power under Section 18B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 certain information from the petitioner- who was a licensee of a license issued under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The undisputed fact remains that within seven days period stipulated, the petitioner neither furnished the information sought for by the Director of Medicines, State of Jharkhand nor sought any extension of time to provide the same. Of course, the petitioner has provided certain information consequent upon cancellation of the license granted to him under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for non-furnishing of the information. Of course, the petitioner has provided certain information consequent upon cancellation of the license granted to him under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for non-furnishing of the information. Though, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the information has been furnished, the complaint ought not have been instituted, but the fact remains that since the information that was sought for in exercise of the power under Section 18B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 within the time stipulated by the Director of Medicines, State of Jharkhand and which appears to be a reasonable time; by the petitioner not furnishing the said information within the time stipulated nor requesting for any extension of time to the Director of Medicines, State of Jharkhand, the offence punishable under Section 28A read with Section 18B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is complete. Therefore, subsequently, furnishing certain information whether that suffices or not to the requirement of the notice issued by the Director of Medicines, State of Jharkhand, particularly after cancellation of the license of the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this court, will not extinguish the offence already committed by the petitioner by not furnishing information as he is obligated to furnish, under Section 18B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Therefore, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Spl. Judge, Drugs and Cosmetics, Ranchi finding prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 28A & 18B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 27(d) read with Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is concerned, there is allegation that the petitioner was illegally indulging in the business of selling narcotic drugs obviously, in violation of the conditions of the license issued. The contention of the petitioner is that the said allegation against the petitioner is out and out false. The same is at best a defence which the petitioner can take during the trial of the case, but certainly the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 9. The contention of the petitioner is that the said allegation against the petitioner is out and out false. The same is at best a defence which the petitioner can take during the trial of the case, but certainly the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 9. So far as the contention of the petitioner that in view of the notification of the Central Government, 12,000 bottles of codeine which was sold by the petitioner to one M/s Baba Kinaram Pharmacy, Varanasi do not involve sale of narcotic drugs is concerned; again the same is a question of fact. It is submitted by the learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State that the complainant upon enquiry found that M/s Baba Kinaram Pharmacy, Varanasi is a non-existent entity which only corroborates the contention of the complainant that the petitioner was indulging in illegal business of selling 12,000 bottles of Choco syrup containing codeine; to drug addicts but to keep the record straight was making false entries in the books of account showing sale of the same to ghost entities. 10. Be that as it may since charge is yet to be framed in this case, certainly, the trial Court will take a call in respect of this contention of the petitioner, hence, this Court at this stage is not expressing any opinion on this submission made by the petitioner and makes it open for the trial Court to take the call at the time of framing of charge, but since the offences punishable under Section 28A read with Section 18B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as well as the 27(d) read with Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is made out, even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner is considered to be true in their entirety, hence this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for by the petitioner including the cognizance order is to be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. 12. In view of dismissal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide order dated 20.03.2025, is vacated. 13. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.