2012 (10) TMI 1163 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence nder the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act - huge quantity of Schedule H drug containing narcotic substance was being transported - Held that - Since the appellants had no documents in their possession to disclose as to for what purpose such a huge quantity of Schedule H drug containing narcotic substance was being transported and that too stealthily, it cannot be simply presumed that such transportation was for therapeutic practice as mentioned in the Notifications dated 14.11.1985 and 29.1.1993. Therefore, if the said requirement meant for therapeutic practice is not satisfied then in the event of the entire 100 ml. content of the cough syrup containing the prohibited quantity of codeine phosphate is meant for human consumption, the same would certainly fall within the penal provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act calling for appropriate punishment to be inflicted upon the appellants. Therefore, the appellants failure to establish the specific conditions required to be satisfied under the above referred to notifications, the application of the exemption provided under the said notifications in order to consider the appellants application for bail by the Courts below does not arise. As far as the grievance raised on the ground that the appellants were illegally detained beyond 24 hours by the police is concerned, the conclusion of the High Court having been based on the satisfaction reached by it, we do not find any scope to interfere with the same.

Summary

Issues:
- Bail application based on seizure of pharmaceutical products containing codeine phosphate beyond prescribed quantity
- Interpretation of provisions under Drugs & Cosmetics Act and N.D.P.S. Act
- Applicability of exemptions under Central Government Notifications
- Consideration of bail under Section 36A(4) of N.D.P.S. Act

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the denial of bail by the High Court concerning the seizure of a large quantity of cough syrup with codeine phosphate beyond the prescribed limit. The appellants argued that the content of codeine phosphate in each bottle was within permissible limits under certain Rules and Notifications, thus not violating the N.D.P.S. Act.

2. The appellants contended that the cough syrups were pharmaceutical products covered by the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, allowing their sale under specific rules. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the appellants' failure to provide valid documents for transporting such a substantial quantity of cough syrup.

3. The Court highlighted that the presence of codeine phosphate beyond permissible limits in the seized cough syrup indicated potential violation of the N.D.P.S. Act. The appellants' inability to explain the purpose of transportation further weakened their case for bail.

4. The appellants also raised concerns about their prolonged detention and eligibility for bail under specific legal provisions. However, the Court found insufficient grounds to support these claims, as they were not adequately addressed in previous proceedings.

5. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the facts of the case did not align with previous decisions cited by the appellants. The judgment clarified that the decision pertained only to the bail application and did not imply a judgment on the merits of the allegations against the appellants.