1989 (2) TMI 411 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Framing of charges under sections 22 & 29 of the NDPS Act read with Section 120-B IPC based on a co-accused's statement.
- Conscious possession of the drug by the accused.
- Interpretation of sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act regarding possession of morphine.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the criminal revision challenging the order of an Additional Sessions Judge directing the framing of charges against the petitioner and his co-accused under sections 22 & 29 of the NDPS Act read with Section 120-B IPC. The incident involved the discovery of morphine powder in a book being snatched by the accused. The defense argued against framing charges based solely on the co-accused's statement, emphasizing the lack of other evidence to prove conspiracy. It was contended that the charge of conspiracy should be quashed as a co-accused's statement cannot be a substantive piece of evidence for framing charges.

Furthermore, the defense argued against framing charges under sections 21 or 22 of the NDPS Act due to insufficient evidence of conscious possession by the petitioner. Reference was made to a legal precedent emphasizing the need for judicial consideration before framing charges affecting a person's liberty. The court noted that the accused were handling the book containing morphine, creating a presumption of possession under section 54 of the NDPS Act. This section places the onus on the accused to explain possession satisfactorily, and mere possession of the drug constitutes an offense under the Act.

The judgment clarified the distinction between sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act concerning the possession of morphine. Morphine, as a derivative of opium, falls under the definition of a "manufactured drug" under section 21, making possession of morphine an offense. On the other hand, section 22 pertains to "psychotropic substances," which do not include morphine as per the Act's Schedule. Therefore, the court partially allowed the criminal revision petition, quashing the framed charges and directing the framing of charges solely under section 21 of the NDPS Act against the petitioner and his co-accused.