2011 (6) TMI 753 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrest memos dated 06.08.2010 and 14.09.2010.
2. Whether Ketamine and Ketamine Hydrochloride are distinct substances under the law.
3. Entitlement to compensation for alleged illegal incarceration.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Arrest Memos:

The petitioners challenged the arrest memos dated 06.08.2010 and 14.09.2010 issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer, D.R.I., Chennai. The first petitioner was intercepted at Chennai Airport with lorry transport receipts for Ketamine, leading to the seizure of 150 Kgs. of suspected Ketamine. The petitioner admitted his involvement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The second petitioner was alleged to have supplied Ketamine to the first petitioner and also made a voluntary statement on 14.09.2010. The petitioners argued that there was no prohibition on the export of Ketamine or Ketamine Hydrochloride under the Customs Act and that their possession was not an offence.

2. Distinction Between Ketamine and Ketamine Hydrochloride:

The petitioners contended that Ketamine and Ketamine Hydrochloride are different substances and that the notification under the FTDR Act only referred to Ketamine. The court noted that Ketamine Hydrochloride is a chemical compound of Ketamine, having an identical effect and more stable. It was further noted that Ketamine Hydrochloride is prone to smuggling and is used in "rave parties" in various countries. The court referred to a notification issued by the Ministry of Finance on 10.02.2011, including Ketamine as a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act, 1985, and clarified that all forms and derivatives of Ketamine are psychotropic substances.

3. Entitlement to Compensation:

The petitioners argued that their arrest was illegal and sought compensation for illegal incarceration. The court held that the petitioners' arguments did not hold merit as the notification under the NDPS Act clarified that Ketamine and its derivatives are psychotropic substances. The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the petitioners must stand trial before the appropriate criminal court and put forth their defense under the law.

Conclusion:

The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court held that the arrest memos were not illegal. The petitioners were not entitled to any compensation for their incarceration. The court emphasized that the petitioners must face trial and present their defense in the appropriate criminal court.