2005 (9) TMI 632 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat upholding the conviction of the appellant under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 correct?

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under the NDPS Act based on possession of opium, Interpretation of sections 17, 18, and 21 of the NDPS Act, Application of the concept of "commercial quantity" and "small quantity" in determining punishment.

Analysis:

The appeal challenged the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) based on the possession of opium. The appellant and another individual were intercepted by the police while carrying suspected drugs. The trial court convicted both accused for possessing opium without a permit, leading to imprisonment and fines. The High Court upheld the conviction but altered the sections under which the appellant was found guilty, focusing on Section 21(c) and Section 29 of the Act. The High Court considered the total quantity of opium recovered to be above the "commercial quantity," justifying the minimum punishment of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.

The main contention in the appeal was the High Court's interpretation of the total quantity of opium recovered and its application of Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. The appellant argued that there was no criminal conspiracy between him and the deceased individual, and hence, Section 29 should not apply. The appellant contended that the High Court incorrectly assumed a criminal conspiracy and misinterpreted the total quantity of opium recovered, leading to the wrong application of Section 21(c).

Upon careful examination, the Supreme Court found that the High Court's judgment was justified. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy between the appellant and the deceased individual. The Court agreed that Section 29 was not applicable in this case. The appellant was found in possession of a substance that qualified as an "opium derivative" under the NDPS Act, falling under Section 21 for illicit possession of a "manufactured drug." The Court rejected the argument that the appellant's offense should fall under a lesser punishment category due to the quantity involved, as the substance exceeded the "commercial quantity" specified under the Act.

The Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the minimum punishment of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. The appeal was dismissed, concluding that the High Court's judgment was valid and correctly applied the relevant provisions of the Act.