2001 (1) TMI 972 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Section 17 of the NDPS Act, non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, defense under Section 27 of the NDPS Act.

Conviction under Section 17 of the NDPS Act:
The appellant was convicted under Section 17 of the NDPS Act for possession of 23.5 grams of opium. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. The defense argued that the evidence of the police officer who conducted the search was uncorroborated, but the Supreme Court held that the recovery of opium from the appellant's person and the endorsement containing the appellant's signature could be treated as corroborating circumstances. The Court rejected the argument that the evidence of the police officer was uncorroborated and upheld the conviction.

Non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act:
The appellant contended that there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as the search was not conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. However, the Court found this argument to be weak as the police officer had asked the appellant if he wanted the search to be conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, to which the appellant responded negatively. This interaction was recorded, and the Court held that there was no non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act. The Court declined to interfere with the conviction on this ground.

Defense under Section 27 of the NDPS Act:
The defense raised the issue of Section 27 of the NDPS Act, which provides for a lesser punishment if the possession of the narcotic substance was intended for personal consumption and not for sale or distribution. The appellant argued that the opium recovered was only 23.5 grams, which was below the specified "small quantity" of 25 grams as per a Central Government notification. The Court noted that the appellant had not previously raised this defense during the trial. In the interest of justice and to avoid a miscarriage of justice, the Court allowed the appellant to adopt a defense under Section 27 of the Act and remitted the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The appellant was granted bail and provided with a state-appointed defense counsel for the trial.

This detailed analysis of the Supreme Court judgment highlights the issues of conviction under the NDPS Act, non-compliance with search procedures, and the defense under Section 27 of the Act, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal reasoning and outcomes of the case.