The Allahabad High Court has denied bail to two accused in an alleged Codeine cough syrup diversion case. The Court held that possession of quantities beyond permissible limits attracts the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
Justice Ashutosh Srivastava passed the order in Abdul Qadir and Another v. State of U.P. The Court emphasised that exemption provisions relating to Codeine preparations must be strictly interpreted and fully complied with.
The Court observed:
“In the opinion of the Court the exemption provisions are required to be strictly and literally complied with and further that the conditions under which the exemption is granted is strictly adhered to… Any violation of any condition would desentitle the claimant the exemption. In the instant case the possession of huge quantity of illegally diverted Codeine based Cough Syrup has been recovered and thus the condition ‘established in therapeutic practice’ is flagrantly violated denying the applicants of the exemption.”
Allegations and Charges
The prosecution alleged that authorities recovered 119 boxes containing 11,885 bottles of Codeine-based cough syrup while the accused were loading the consignment into a car.
Police booked the applicants under Sections 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985. They also invoked Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Arguments on Behalf of the Applicants
Counsel for the applicants submitted that they were licensed medicine dealers. They claimed to have purchased the cough syrup through valid invoices. The defence also pointed out that the applicants had no criminal antecedents.
Further, counsel argued that the Drug Inspector lacked authority to collect and seal the samples.
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the statutory position governing Codeine. It noted that “Codeine” (Methyl-Morphine), including its salts, dilutions and preparations, appears as a manufactured drug at Item No. 35 of the Central Government Notification dated 14 November 1985.
The notification grants a limited exemption. Codeine escapes the rigours of the NDPS Act only if it is used in therapeutic practice, contains not more than 100 milligrams per dosage, and does not exceed a concentration of 2.5% in undivided preparations.
Justice Srivastava held that the applicants failed to meet these conditions. The recovery of 11,885 bottles indicated large-scale possession inconsistent with therapeutic use. The Court concluded that the condition of use “in therapeutic practice” stood flagrantly violated. Consequently, the applicants could not claim the benefit of the exemption.
The Court further observed:
“No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused persons. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused persons on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused persons have not committed an offence.”
Finding a prima facie case and no grounds to grant relief at this stage, the Court rejected the bail applications.
Appearance
For the applicants: Sri S. B. Singh, assisted by Sri Zafeer Ahmad
For the State: Sri Anoop Trivedi, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Paritosh Kumar Malviya (AGA-1) and Sri Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, AGA
