Disclosure Statement Alone Not Enough: P&H High Court Discharges Licensed Medical Dealer in NDPS Case
Case Name: Anil Kumar Kaushik v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 29 May 2026
Citation: CRR-2324-2022
Bench: Justice H.S. Grewal
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a licensed medical dealer cannot be prosecuted under the NDPS Act solely on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement, particularly when there is no independent incriminating material linking him to illegal trafficking and a supplementary investigation had found him innocent. The Court set aside the order framing charges and discharged the petitioner from the FIR.
Summary: The petitioner, a licensed medical dealer and proprietor of Anil Medical Store, Delhi, challenged the order of the Special Court, Faridkot, which had dismissed his discharge application and framed charges against him in an NDPS case arising out of FIR No. 104 dated 23.05.2021. The FIR was initially registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act following the recovery of 31,020 Lomotil tablets from co-accused Jaspal Singh @ Rinku and Harjinder Singh @ Kala. Subsequently, Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added and the petitioner was nominated as an accused based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Harjinder Singh, who claimed that the recovered tablets had been purchased from the petitioner.
During investigation, the police searched the petitioner’s premises and recovered certain medicines and tablets from a store room located behind his shop. The petitioner maintained that he was a duly licensed dealer authorized to stock and sell such medicines and that any sale made to the co-accused had been carried out on the basis of a licence produced before him, which was later discovered to be forged. He argued that he had no knowledge of the alleged forgery and that his implication rested solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused.
The Court noted that a subsequent enquiry conducted by senior police authorities verified the petitioner’s licence and supporting documents and found him innocent. A supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was accordingly filed in his favour. The Court further observed that the prosecution itself alleged that the co-accused had used forged documents while purchasing medicines and there was no material demonstrating that the petitioner was aware of such forgery or knowingly participated in any illegal activity.
Examining the trial Court’s reasoning, the High Court found it unpersuasive. The trial Court had relied upon the fact that the medicines were recovered from a store room behind the shop rather than from the exact licensed premises and that no licence was produced at the time of recovery. The High Court held that this circumstance alone could not justify an inference of criminal involvement when the petitioner admittedly possessed a valid licence and was engaged in a lawful pharmaceutical business.
The Court further held that apart from the disclosure statement of the co-accused, there was no independent evidence indicating that the petitioner knowingly supplied contraband for illegal purposes or was consciously involved in trafficking activities under the NDPS Act. Mere supply of medicines by a licensed dealer in the ordinary course of business, without proof of knowledge, intention, or unlawful participation, could not attract criminal liability. Reliance was also placed on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Naveen Handa v. Central Bureau of Narcotics, which emphasised that possession or dealing in drugs under a valid licence does not automatically attract NDPS liability.
Decision: Allowing the revision petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the Special Court, Faridkot, insofar as it related to the petitioner. The petitioner was discharged from the FIR, while the trial was directed to continue against the remaining accused persons in accordance with law.