# Birendra Lal Verma & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 812 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-12-19 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27966 of 2025 - **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Achal Sachdev - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/birendra-lal-verma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54851 - **Pages:** 28 ## Text _Characters 0–39,934 of 90,694. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39934 for what follows._ 812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES that the ECIR is an internal document of the ED and is ordinarily not amenable to quashing in exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly when multiple FIRs containing scheduled offences continue to subsist in law and investigation is still at the nascent stage where not even the prosecution complaint is filed. B. The respondent, ED, shall refrain from pursuing or continuing investigation, inquiry, summons, searches, seizures, attachment or any other coercive measures including warrants qua the offences and allegations arising out of the consolidated FIR including FIR No.353/2015 i.e. principal FIR (Grand Venice Project consolidated FIRs), till such time as: "i. the final adjudication of Criminal Misc. Application No. 25724/2022 pending before the learned Single Judge of this Court; or ii. the stage of framing of charges in Case No. 1559/2019. iii. Any final order passed by the competent Court qua the said FIRs, whichever is the earliest. C. The petitioner is directed to pursue Criminal Misc. Application No. 25724/2022. D. The NBWs dated 11.04.2025 issued by the learned Special Judge are set aside, as the same were issued in a manner inconsistent with the procedural safeguards applicable at the pre-complaint stage under the PMLA. E. Upon vacation of the stay order in Criminal Misc. Application No. 25724/2022, or upon final adjudication of the said application, the respondent shall be free to resume investigation process qua the FIR No. 353/2015 principal FIR (Grand Venice Project consolidated FIRs), in accordance with the law." 200. In view of the aforementioned terms, the petition is partly allowed and stands disposed of. 201. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 202. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case in any FIR/ECIR. 203. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith. ---------- (2025) 12 ILRA 812 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. THE HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27966 of 2025 Alongwith other connected cases Birendra Lal Verma & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to whether the FIRs registered against the petitioners in relation to Phensedyl cough syrup containing codeine were liable to be quashed in exercise of writ/inherent jurisdiction on the ground that the alleged acts were governed solely by the Drugs and 12 All. Birendra Lal Vema & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 813 Cosmetics Act, 1940 and not the NDPS Act, and consequently, whether continuation of investigation under the NDPS Act and allied penal provisions was legally sustainable at the pre-trial stage. Headnotes Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - ss. 2, 8, 21, 22, 25, 26, 26(D), 29, 37,60, 80 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss. 61(2), 132, 276, 277, 278, 318(4), 319(4) - 336(3), 319(2), 3(5), 338, 340(2), 206(b), 336(2) - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - ss. 2, 32(3) - Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - Rule 97 - The petitions arose out of multiple FIRs registered against the petitioners alleging illegal possession, transportation and trade of Phensedyl cough syrup containing codeine phosphate, wherein the police authorities, acting on specific information, seized substantial quantities of the said syrup and initiated proceedings under the provisions of the NDPS Act as well as allied penal statutes. The prosecution case, in substance, was that the petitioners were dealing with the contraband substance without valid authorization and in quantities exceeding the permissible limit, thereby attracting penal liability. The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that Phensedyl is a medicinal preparation governed by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, that they were operating under valid licences, and that the essential ingredients for constituting an offence under the NDPS Act were absent. Aggrieved by the registration and continuation of criminal proceedings, the petitioners invoked the writ/inherent jurisdiction of the High Court seeking quashing of the FIRs and consequential reliefs. Held: The transferring of Phensedyl cough syrup was being done from Jharkhand to the State of Uttar Pradesh by e-way bills which were not in the proper category of carrying of drugs but were for the purposes of carrying of snacks and namkeen - According to the FIRs, medicinal articles were brought from the State of Jharkhand after concealing them in various grains namely wheat and rice - Not only that, the persons who were dealing with those articles namely Phensedyl cough syrup were having fabricated citizenship cards, Aadhar cards etc. etc - If fabrication was there as is evident from the FIR then definitely cases of the petitioners would be covered under various other sections of BNS as well - The sub-stockists to whom the various main stockists were transferring the articles, were either not in existence or were such stockists who were not maintaining their stock registers etc. properly - As per s. 32(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the petitioners could be prosecuted under "any other law for any act or omission which constitutes an offence against this Chapter" - Also s. 80 of NDPS Act gives the liberty to prosecute under the NDPS Act along with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act - The enormity of the entire matter has to be investigated and, therefore, no question for interference in the FIRs arises, writ petitions dismissed. [Paras 44 to 48 ] (E-13) Case Law Cited State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.5476 of 2024 decided on 21.1.2025; Md. Sahabuddin & Ors. v. State of Assam, 2012 (119) AIC 45; Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande, AIR 2014 SC 3625; Hira Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, AIR 2020 SC 3255; State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2019 SC 84; M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522; Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, (2023) 7 SCC 711; Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641; Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, (2021) 18 SCC 135; S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat, (2001) 7 SCC 659; Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand, (2024) 10 SCC 527; State by the Inspector of Police v. M. Maridoss & Anr., (2023) 4 SCC 338; Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mahaan Dairies, (2004) 11 SCC 798; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax III-Bangalore v. M/s. Wipro Limited, (2023) 15 SCC 455; State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 - referred to 814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Ashok Kumar v. Union of India, 2015 (2) ALJ 193; Vibhor Rana v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine All 908 - distinguished Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma reported in (2021) 12 SCC 674; Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors, Criminal Appeal No.1319 of 2013 decided on 17.4.2025 - relied on List of Acts Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 List of Keywords s. 80 of NDPS Act; Narcotic Drug; Schedule-I of Cosmetics Rules; Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; s. 32(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act; Chapter IV of Drugs and Cosmetics Act; Licence / Permit / Authorisation, Manufactured Drug; Clause 35 of Notification dated 14.11.1985; Notification dated 15.08.2022 issued by Commissioner, Food Safety and Drugs Administration; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS); Cognizable and Non-bailable Offence; Investigation in different districts; Deep investigation; Seizure; Contraband; Illegal trade; Fabricated documents; E-way bills; Non-existent firms; Stock registers; Transportation; InterState transfer; Non-interference at the stage of investigation; Abuse of process of law; Ends of justice; Dismissal of writ petitions. Case Arising From ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 27966 of 2025) Connected with other Matters Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 26006 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 27128 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 27700 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 27806 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 27953 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 27968 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 27985 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 28339 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 28377 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 28393 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 28628 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 28667 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 29022 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 29116 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 29173 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 29247 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 29328 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 26679 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 28730 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 27505 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 29794 of 2025; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 29797 of 2025 From the FIR registered in Police Station Kotwali, Varanasi on 15.11.2025 which had given rise to Case Crime No.235 of 2025 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioners: Naman Agarwal, Sr. Advocate, Vivek Chaturvedi Adv. for the Respondents: GA (Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J. & Hon'ble Achal Sachdev, J.) 1. Various First Information Reports from the districts of Sonbhadra; Sant Ravidas Nagar; Basti; Ghaziabad, Kanpur Nagar; Jaunpur and Varanasi were lodged and they have been challenged by means of various writ petitions. 2. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.29173 challenges the FIR registered in Sonbhadra on 18.10.2025 which had given rise to Case Crime No.1054 of 2025 under sections 21 & 8 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "NDPS Act") and sections 318(4) & 319(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNS"). In the FIR there are 4 accused persons. 3. The FIR which was lodged in Ghaziabad on 4.11.2025 had given rise to Case Crime No.0691 of 2025 under sections 336(3), 319(2), 318(4), 3(5) of 12 All. Birendra Lal Vema & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 815 BNS and sections 8, 22, 29, 37 and 60 of NDPS Act. In the FIR there were 17 accused persons. This FIR has been challenged in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.28339 of 2025 by Pappan Yadav; in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.26006 of 2025 by Abhishek Sharma and in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.26679 of 2025 by Aasif Mohammad. 4. Thereafter FIR dated 12.11.2025 which was lodged in the district of Kanpur Nagar and which had given rise to Case Crime No.0087 of 2025 was lodged against one Vinod Agarwal and he had filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.27128 of 2025. One more FIR was lodged in Kanpur Nagar in which the accused persons were Smt. Manju Sharma and Abhishek Sharma and this FIR had given rise to Case Crime No.0090 of 2025. Manju Sharma and Dr. Abhishek Sharma filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.29116 of 2025 challenging the FIR vis.-a-vis. them. 5. Another set of writ petitions was pertaining to the district of Jaunpur. The FIR dated 21.11.2025 which had given rise to Case Crime No.354 of 2025 was lodged against 14 accused persons. Against this FIR, Ankit Srivastava filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.28628 of 2025; Mohd. Salman Ansari filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.28377 of 2025; Anupriya Singh filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.28393 of 2025; M/s. Milan Drug Centre through its proprietor Arun Prakash Maurya, M/s. Milan Medical Agency through its proprietor Om Prakash Maurya, M/s. Shi Medical Agency through its proprietor Ankul Kumar Maurya; M/s. Harsh Medical Agency through its proprietor Sanjeev Kumar Chaurasiya; M/s. Nigam Medical Agency through its proprietor Devek Kumar Nigam; M/s. S.N. Medical Agency through its proprietor Smt. Mehroon Nisha; M/s. Gupta Trading through its proprietor Saurabh Kumar filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.28667 of 2025; Shubham Jaiswal filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.28733 of 2025. In the same district i.e. Jaunpur another FIR dated 30.11.2025 was lodged against 4 persons which had given rise to Case Crime No.0357 of 2025. This FIR was challenged by Arun Sonkar (correct name Arjun Sonkar) in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.29247 of 2025. 6. Again, in district Varanasi FIR dated 15.11.2025 was lodged against 28 persons which had given rise to Case Crime No.235 of 2025. Against this FIR, Pratik Mishra, Mukesh Kumar Yadav, Rishabh Yadav, Vivek Kumar Khanna and Ankush Singh filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.27700 of 2025; Vishal Kumar Jaiswal, Divesh Jaiswal, Adarsh Pandey, Niraj Kumar Singh and Vikas Singh filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.27806 of 2025; Bhola Prasad filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.27953 of 2025; Niraj Seth and Tushar Agarwal filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.27968 of 2025; Shubham Jaiswal filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.27985 of 2025 and Dharmendra Kumar Agarwal filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.27505 of 2025. In the same district another FIR being FIR dated 19.11.2025 was lodged which had given rise to Case Crime No.0343 of 2025. This FIR was challenged by Shubham Jaiswal in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.29328 of 2025. 7. The FIR dated 28.11.2025 lodged in Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) which had given rise to Case Crime No.187 of 2025 was challenged in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.29022 of 2025 and the 816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES FIR dated 22.11.2025 lodged in Basti and which had given rise to Case Crime No.0217 of 2025 was challenged in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.28730 of 2025. 8. Learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners in all the writ petitions were Sri Nipun Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Naman Agarwal, Ms. Sufia Saba, Sri Ashish Chitransh, Sri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi, Sri Shantanu, Sri Madhukar Maurya, Paritosh Joshi, Shashank Shekhar Misra, Abhijeet Mishra, Ghanshyam Yadav, Akshay Raghuvanshi and Sri Vivek Chaturvedi. 9. If we analyze the various FIRs then the allegations that can be gleaned out against the petitioners were as follows : The FIR dated 18.10.2025 which was challenged in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.29173 of 2025 related to district Sonbhadra and was lodged under sections 319(2), 318(4) of BNS and sections 8 and 21 of NDPS Act. In it the first informant Sri Vinod Kumar Sav, Excise Inspector had alleged that when he, along with his team, in a Government Vehicle No.UP70AG1647 was keeping a vigil during the Dhanteras and Deepawali festival, then through some informer information had been received that two containers having intoxicating syrup bottles were coming from Hinduari and going to Shaktinagar. Upon getting this information, vehicles were checked. The containers registered as RJ11GC1710 and no.MH46AR6826 were intercepted. The drivers of these two containers along with their companions informed that they were carrying certain namkeen and chips packets and they were taking them from Ghaziabad to Jharkhand. When the police became strict and asked them as to what was actually contained in the containers then the drivers and their companions told that in the containers, in between the chips packets and the snacks packets, ESKUF Cough Syrup bottles were kept and were being taken to Jharkhand. Upon getting this information, the Excise Inspector informed Sri Rajesh Kumar Maurya, the Drug Inspector and from the containers 399 sacks were found having 4787 cartons and in total there were 119675 bottles of the medicines. The invoice which the vehicle drivers were having were of 'Hot Mix Namkeen'. Upon getting information that the drug ESKUF Cough Syrup had Codeine as an ingredient, the bottles of the cough syrup were sealed and accordingly action was taken vis.-a-vis. the NDPS Act and other concerned Acts. In the FIR itself it was stated that the articles were being taken from Ghaziabad to Jharkhand. 10. Thereafter the police got active and information was sent to the Ghaziabad police and it was informed that a vehicle had been apprehended in Sonbhadra and with regard to it a case had been registered which had given rise to Case Crime No.1054 of 2025. 11. The first informant in the Ghaziabad case, Inspector Anil Kumar Rajput had lodged the FIR on 4.11.2025 and that had given rise to Case Crime No.0691 of 2025 and upon various enquiries being made information was got from a Mukhbir (informer) that in the Machhali Godam the owner of Bareilly Gorakhpur Transport namely Santosh Bhadana along with his friend Saurabh Tyagi were dealing with the cough syrup bottles and he had informed that these bottles were loaded at the godown and after hiding them in wheat, rice and other 12 All. Birendra Lal Vema & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 817 articles, they were being smuggled to various places for being used as an intoxicant. Thereafter the Machhali Godam of Bareilly Gorakhpur Transport company was raided, where a 12 tyred truck and two tankers were found parked and in the vicinity in a Creta Car a person was seen sitting, who was supervising the loading and unloading of various cartons from the trucks. The person who was sitting in the Creta Car gave out his name as Saurabh Tyagi, son of Mukesh Kumar Tyagi and from him and his driver was recovered five mobiles with various telephone numbers. The whatsapp chats from his mobile numbers were fed in a pen drive. A laptop was also recovered along with 3 pendrives. Not only that, Rs.20,00,000/- were also recovered. Also recovered, were 4 seals showing the names of the following firms : (i) Darshana Enterprises; (ii) S N Pharma (iii) R S Pharma (iv) the other seal was with regard to the above three firms and their proprietors. 12. Also was found in the bag of the accused Saurabh Tyagi a card showing that he was a citizen of United Arab Emirates and that he was working as an Archive Clerk at Ramada Plaza Deira Hotel at Dubai. There were other cards also available with the accused Saurabh Tyagi and they were with regard to one Sanjit Chakraborti. Matter did not end there. On a 100 Rupee stamp paper, an agreement with one Vanya Enterprises was also found. The arrested person i.e. Saurabh Tyagi informed the police authority that he was having connections with Pappan Yadav who had a firm called Mederon Health Care and that he was dealing with the cough syrup. He also informed that the network with regard to the cough syrup was also having its tentacles in Varanasi where Shubham Jaiswal was dealing in the cough syrup illegitimately and he was sending those cough syrups to various destinations. He also told the police authorities as to how the fabricated bills were prepared and were used for the purposes of selling of the cough syrup for illegal purposes. The accused Saurabh Tyagi also ifnormed the police as to how the phones with fabricated IDs and SIM cards were used in the sale and purchase of the cough syrups. Information was also given as to how the eway bills etc. were prepared for the other purposes but were used for the purposes of transporting the cough syrup. 13. Since information was received with regard to the carrying on of illegal trade of cough syrup in Varanasi, the police party informed the Varanasi police and there the FIR was lodged after certain raids etc. on 15.11.2025 against as many as 28 individuals and that had given rise to Case Crime No.0235 of 2025. Against the FIR filed at Varanasi, eight writ petitions were filed, the details of which have been already given in the very beginning. In the FIR which was lodged vis.-a-vis. Varanasi, it was essentially narrated in the FIR that one Shaily Traders of Ranchi, Jharkhand was transferring the cough syrup to as many as 38 firms and these 38 firms in their turn were selling/transferring the cough syrup to smaller distributors. The FIR which had given rise to Case Crime No.0235 of 2025 had also given the details of all the firms etc. and the articles which were apprehended from those firms. It had also stated as to how the articles were transferred to non-existent smaller retailers. 818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Also was mentioned the fact that the smaller retailers were quite often nonexistent and that the cough syrup was thus clandestinely being transported to unknown destinations. 14. With regard to Jaunpur, FIR dated 21.11.2025 was lodged and that had given rise to Case Crime No.0354 of 2025. With regard to the cases at Jaunpur also, the FIRs indicated how the main contraband was taken from Shaily Traders, Jharkhand and thereafter transferred to as many as 12 firms and again thereafter given to smaller firms with doubtful credentials. 15. To the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.28628 of 2025 pertaining to district Jaunpur wherein the petitioner is Ankit Kumar Srivastava and to Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.27953 of 2025 wherein the petitioner is Bhola Prasad, short counter affidavits have been filed by the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has, in effect, submitted that in the cases at hand, FIRs were lodged under various sections of NDPS Act, BNS and Drugs and Cosmetics Act and that could not have been done in view of the judgments of this Court and that of the Supreme Court. 17. The FIR in the district of Sonbhadra was lodged under sections 318(4), 319(2) of BNS and sections 8 and 21 of NDPS Act. Similarly, FIR in the district of Basti was lodged under sections 276, 277, 278 318(4) of BNS. In S.R.Nagar it was lodged under sections 318(4), 338, 340(2), 206(b), 336(3) of BNS; In district Varanasi, two FIRs were lodged one as Case Crime No.0235 of 2025 under sections 26(D) of NDPS Act and the subsequently added sections 8,21 and 29 of NDPS Act and under sections 61(2), 338, 336(2) and 340(2) of BNS. The other FIR had given rise to Case Crime No.03433 of 2025 under sections 8, 21 and 25 of NDPS Act. In Kanpur Nagar also two FIRs were lodged; one as Case Crime No.0087 of 2025 under sections 132, 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of BNS and another as Case Crime No.0090 of 2025 under sections 340(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 of BNS and sections 21(c) and 26 NDPS Act. In district Ghaziabad FIR was lodged as Case Crime No.691 of 2025 under sections 3(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3) of BNS and section 8, 22 and 29 of NDPS Act. In district Jaunpur, two FIRs one being Case Crime No.354 of 2025 under sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS and another as Case Crime No.357 of 2025 under sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS were lodged. 18. He submits that under the NDPS Act, there was, under section 8, a prohibition to certain operations. He, therefore, drew the attention of the Court to section 8 of NDPS Act and, therefore, the same is being reproduced as under :- "8. Prohibition of certain operations.-No person shall (a) cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant; or (b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or (c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export interState, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, 12 All. Birendra Lal Vema & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 819 except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation: Provided that, and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the prohibition against the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of ganja or the production, possession, use, consumption, purchase, sale, transport, warehousing, import interState and export inter-State of ganja for any purpose other than medical and scientific purpose shall take effect only from the date which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf: Provided further that nothing in this section shall apply to the export of poppy straw for decorative purposes." (emphasis supplied) 19. Since there is a prohibition under section 8(c) of the NDPS Act to produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export interState, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and further since there were certain exceptions made for the narcotic drug and psychotropic substances for being used for medicinal and scientific purposes after authorisation, he submitted that the articles which were under consideration i.e. the cough syrup Phensedyl which contained codeine, the case could not be covered under the NDPS Act. For this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioners also took the Court through the provisions of sections 2(xi), 2(xiv), 2(xvi) and 2(xxiii) of the NDPS Act which are being reproduced here as under :- (xi) "manufactured drug" means- (a) all coca derivatives, medicinal cannabis, opium derivatives and poppy straw concentrate; (b) any other narcotic substance or preparation which the Central Government may, having regard to the available information as to its nature or to a decision, if any, under any International Convention, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare not to be a manufactured drug, but does not include any narcotic substance or preparation which the Central Government may, having regard to the available information as to its nature or to a decision, if any, under any International Convention, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare not to be a manufactured drug; . (xiv) narcotic drug means coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, poppy straw and includes all manufactured drugs; .. (xvi) opium derivative means (a) medicinal opium, that is, opium which has undergone the processes 820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES necessary to adapt it for medicinal use in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Pharmacopoeia or any other pharmacopoeia notified in this behalf by the Central Government, whether in powder form or granulated or otherwise or mixed with neutral materials; (b) prepared opium, that is, any product of opium obtained by any series of operations designed to transform opium into an extract suitable for smoking and the dross or other residue remaining after opium is smoked; (c) phenanthrene alkaloids, namely, morphine, codeine, thebaine and their salts; (d) diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also known as dia-morphine or heroin and its salts; and (e) all preparations containing more than 0.2 per cent. of morphine or containing any diacetylmorphine; ... (xxiii) Psychotropic substance means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material included in the list of psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule; 20. Since after 2014, the concept of essential narcotic drug was also introduced, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Nipun Singh took the Court through section 2(viiia) of the NDPS Act and the same is also being reproduced here as under : (viiia) essential narcotic drug means a narcotic drug notified by the Central Government for medical and scientific use; 21. As per section 2(xi), manufactured drug would mean only such drug which was covered under the definition of manufactured drug. He further submitted that such of those drug which the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette had declared not to be a manufactured drug would not come within the purview of the NDPS Act. He, thereafter submitted that under section 21 of the NDPS Act, if there is any contravention with relation to any manufactured drug and its preparation, then it was punishable under section 21 of the NDPS Act alone. Since, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon section 21 of the NDPS Act, for showing the punishment which could have followed a conviction under the NDPS Act vis.-a-vis. manufactured drug, the same is being reproduced here as under :- "21. Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.- Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufactured drug shall be punishable, (a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 4[one year], or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (b) where the contravention involves quantity, lesser than commercial 12 All. Birendra Lal Vema & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 821 quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a notification numbered as S.O. 826(E) dated 14.11.1985 which was issued as per section 2(xi) of the NDPS Act and stated that if Clause 35 of the notification is seen then Codeine which had a scientific name as Methyl Morphine would be a manufactured drug but would be excepted from being a manufactured drug if it was compounded with one or more ingredients and was containing not more than 100 milligrams of the drug per dosage unit. Since, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Clause 35 of the Notification dated 14.11.1985, the same is being reproduced here as under :- "35. Methyl morphine (commonly known as Codeine) and Ethyl morphine and their sales (including Dionine), all dilutions and preparations except those which are compounded with one or more other ingredients and containing not more than 100 milligrams of the drug per dosage unit and with a concentration not more than 2.5 percent in undivided preparations and which have been established in therapeutic practice." 23. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India : 2015 (2) ALJ 193 and submitted that since the cough syrup in question i.e. Phensedyl was having dilutions and preparations with other compounds and also since codeine was not more than 100 mg. per dosage, therefore, it was not a manufactured drug and also would not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act. He further submitted that the petitioners in all the writ petitions had licenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules framed thereunder and, therefore, he submitted that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma reported in (2021) 12 SCC 674 the offences which fell under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 could not be dealt with under the NDPS Act. He relied upon certain paragraphs of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma which had laid down that the Food Inspector alone was authorized to lodge a First Information Report and not any police officer and, therefore, no FIR could have been registered. Since, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon paragraph nos.158, 158(1), 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 of the judgment, the same are being reproduced here as under : "158. There is another aspect which may have an important bearing on the issue. Under Section 36-AC of the Act, the offences as mentioned therein which include some of the offences under Chapter IV of the Act are declared cognizable and non-bailable. The provision imposes 822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES restriction on the arrested person being released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application and when the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused person is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit an offence. This limitation, is apart from the limitations in CrPC, inter alia. Now, the police officer acting under CrPC even proceeding for a moment on the basis that it is sufficient that a mere memorandum of arrest as required under CrPC is prepared and further there is compliance with other provisions of CrPC also, would it suffice is the question that would arise in the following manner? We have noted from the provisions of the Act and the Rules that it is the Drugs Inspector who is empowered and duty-bound to investigate the complaint about violations of Acts and Rules. He is the person charged with a duty of prosecuting the offenders. If the police officer is merely to be granted a power of arrest and without having any power of investigation then how would it be possible for the police officer to make any investigation under the Act and if no investigation is possible, how would the police officer be in a position to be of any assistance to the Public Prosecutor and, therefore, to the court in the disposal of an application for bail? In other words, it would be based on the records of investigation and material collected by the investigating officer that a court in a case would decide as to whether bail is to be granted or not. How would the police officer seek a remand for carrying out investigation which he cannot do? If the Act and the Rules do not contemplate investigation by a police officer, then, conferring the power of arrest on the police officer, would, in fact, frustrate the working of the Act. On the other hand, if it is the Drugs Inspector who can arrest, the following consequences would follow: 158.1 He has the requisite technical qualifications to properly investigate and prosecute the offender. 159. Declaring the power to arrest with the Inspector, is not to be understood as proclaiming that the Inspector is bound to arrest any person. The provisions of CrPC, relating to arrest, would necessarily have to be followed by the Drugs Inspector. In fact, he is obliged to bear in mind the law, as declared by this Court in D.K. Basu, and the peril of defying the same, would be to invite consequences, inter alia, as are provided therein. As far as the arrest, not being mentioned in Section 34-AA, as forming a ground for visiting the delinquent officer with penalty, it may be noticed that there is a residuary power in Section 34-AA and it would cover any act. We notice that Section 34-AA(d) provides that if any Inspector, exercising powers under the Act or the Rules made thereunder, commits, as such Inspector, any other act, to the injury of any person without having reason to believe that such act is required for the execution of his duty, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. 160. Regarding the power for seeking and ordering a remand under Section 167, we would apply the principles laid down by this Court in Deepak Mahajan and the same principles would apply. 161. This process of interpretation would produce the result of harmonising two seemingly irreconcilable commands from the law-giver. This 12 All. Birendra Lal Vema & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 823 interpretation commends itself to us for the reason that the investigation into offences, under Chapter IV of the Act, would commence, be carried out and would culminate in, in the safe hands of the competent and qualified statutory authority, as designated by law. It would also avoid an outside agency like a police officer, being obliged to register an FIR, for the reason that where arrest has to be made, an FIR is to be registered, and, when the registering of the FIR carries with it an unattainable object of preferring a final report under Section 173 CPC, as far as the police officer is concerned. We make it clear that if a police officer is approached with regard to a complaint regarding commission of an offence falling under Chapter IV of the Act, he is not to register an FIR unless it be that a cognizable offence, other than an offence falling under Chapter IV of the Act, is also made out. He must make over the complaint to the competent Drugs Inspector so that action in accordance with law is immediately taken where only offences under Chapter IV are made out. 162. As far as the arrest contemplated under Section 41 CrPC is concerned, in case a cognizable offence, falling under Chapter IV of the Act, is committed, either in the presence of the Drugs Inspector, or in respect of which offence, a police officer would have power to arrest, as provided therein viz. covered by the situations contemplated under Section 41(ba), the Drugs Inspector would be entitled to effect the arrest. We are arriving at this conclusion on the basis that since the procedure under CrPC is to be read as applicable, except to the extent that a different procedure is to be provided under the Act, and since there is no procedure or power otherwise provided in the Act in regard to arrest, the powers and procedure available to a police officer, with the limitations on the said power, as laid down in D.K. Basu, as also as contained in CrPC, would be applicable. 163. By way of following Deepak Mahajan, we hold that the Drugs Inspector, under the Act, is invested with certain powers similar to a police officer. Still further, we would hold that the word "investigation" cannot be limited only to a police investigation, as has been noted in Deepak Mahajan. Thirdly, we find that the power to arrest a person must indeed flow from the provisions of a statute. The statutory provision under the Act is Section 22(1)(d). The arrested person, under the Act, would be an accused person to be detained under Section 167 (2) CrPC. No doubt, the police officer is bound to provide assistance to the Inspector in case of need to effectuate the arrest where there is resistance or likelihood of resistance. No doubt, in regard to the arrest in relation to offences falling under Chapter IV of the Act, which do not fall under Section 36AC, the power of arrest would depend upon the provision in the Schedule to CrPC. 164. We again reiterate that the existence of the power to arrest with the Drugs Inspector is not to be understood as opening the doors to making illegal, unauthorised or unnecessary arrest. Every power comes with responsibility. In view of the impact of an arrest, the highest care must be taken to exercise the same strictly as per the law.