1999 (10) TMI 716 - SC - Customs

Whether the quantity of substance recovered from the appellant would fall within the limit of small quantity envisaged in Section 27 of the Act? Whether the offence charged against him was made out? Held that - Provided that where such psychotropic substance is in possession of any individual for his personal medical use the quantity thereof shall not exceed one hundred dosage units at a time. The research institution, hospital and dispensary referred to in Sub-rule (2) shall maintain proper accounts and records in relation to the purchase and consumption of the psychotropic substance in their possession. The proviso to Sub-rule (2) is very evident that a person is permitted to keep in his possession for his personal medical use the psychotropic substance upto one hundred dosage at a time. We are not disposed to think that 6 ampoules would cross the above limit and there is no attempt made either through DW-1 (Doctor) or through Court Witness No. 1 (D.M.O.) that 100 dosage would be below the 6 ampoules recovered from him. It is unfortunate that the aforesaid points have not been put forward before the trial court or the High Court. We feel that the conviction and sentence imposed on this appellant were without the sanction of law. Appellant is unlawfully deprived of his personal liberty for such a long period of 5 years on account of over looking the aforesaid facts and the legal position. Allow this appeal and quash the judgment of the High Court as well as the Sessions Court. We acquit the appellant and direct him to be set at liberty forthwith.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Conviction based on possession of psychotropic substance; Legal definition of "manufactured drug"; Compliance with rules governing possession of psychotropic substances.

Analysis:
The appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(i) read with Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for possession of "Buprenorphine tidigesic" and syringes. The trial court, after considering evidence, found the appellant guilty under Section 21 of the Act based on the substance being classified as a "manufactured drug." However, the prosecution failed to prove that "Buprenorphine tidigesic" fell within the legal definition of a "manufactured drug" as per Section 2(xi) of the Act. The substance was, however, identified as a psychotropic substance under the Act.

Possession of a psychotropic substance is regulated by Section 8 of the Act, which prohibits possession except for medical or scientific purposes as per the provisions of the Act or related rules. Rule 66 under Chapter VII of the Act's rules specifies conditions for lawful possession of psychotropic substances. The rule allows individuals to possess a reasonable quantity for genuine scientific or medical needs, with a limit of one hundred dosage units for personal medical use.

In this case, the appellant's possession of "Buprenorphine tidigesic" did not exceed the limit specified for personal medical use. The failure to present this argument before the trial court or the High Court led to an unjust conviction and deprivation of personal liberty for five years. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the lower court judgments, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release. The Court did not address the issue of compensation, leaving the appellant free to pursue legal remedies for that purpose.