9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of appropriate punishment under Section 21(a) or Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) in the absence of exact quantity/percentage of narcotic drug/psychotropic substance found in the seized contraband. 2. Necessity and implications of conducting a Purity Test to ascertain the exact quantity of narcotic drug/psychotropic substance in mixtures. 3. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents regarding the classification of quantities (small, intermediate, commercial) of narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Appropriate Punishment under Section 21(a) or Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act: The primary question addressed was whether, in the absence of the exact quantity/percentage of narcotic drug/psychotropic substance in the seized contraband, the punishment should be imposed under Section 21(a) or Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. The appellant was found guilty by the Trial Court for possessing 1.370 kilograms of heroin and was sentenced under Sections 8(c) r/w Section 29 and Section 8(c) r/w Section 21 of the NDPS Act. The argument presented was that without knowing the exact quantity of heroin in the mixture, the accused should be convicted under Section 21(a), which pertains to small quantities. 2. Necessity and Implications of Conducting a Purity Test: The appellant's counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgments in E. Micheal Raj vs. Narcotic Control Bureau and State of NCT of Delhi v. Ashif Khan @ Kalu, which emphasized the necessity of conducting a Purity Test to determine the exact quantity of narcotic drug in a mixture. The Supreme Court in E. Micheal Raj's case held that without a Purity Test, it must be assumed that the quantity of the narcotic drug is small. This was contrasted with judgments from the Madras High Court, where convictions under Section 21(b) were upheld even without Purity Tests, treating the quantity as intermediate. 3. Interpretation of Relevant Legal Provisions and Judicial Precedents: The court analyzed various judgments and legal provisions, including the definitions of "commercial quantity" and "small quantity" as per Sections 2[viia] and 2[xxiiia] of the NDPS Act and the notification dated 19.10.2001. The court noted the amendments made by Act 09/01, which provided graded sentences based on the quantity of the narcotic drug involved. The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, which distinguished between pure opium and mixtures, emphasizing the necessity of Purity Tests for mixtures to establish the exact quantity of narcotic drug. Conclusion and Judgment: The court concluded that if the contraband is a mixture or preparation with or without a neutral material, it is necessary to conduct a Purity Test to ascertain the exact quantity of the narcotic drug/psychotropic substance. In the absence of such a test, it should be construed that the quantity is small, and punishment should be imposed under Section 21(a). However, if the contraband is a narcotic drug/psychotropic substance simplicitor, there is no need for a Purity Test, and the entire quantity should be considered for determining the appropriate punishment. Specific Directions: 1. For mixtures or preparations falling within entry No.239 of the notification dated 19.10.2001, a Purity Test is mandatory to determine the exact quantity of the narcotic drug/psychotropic substance. 2. For narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances simplicitor, the entire quantity should be considered without a Purity Test. 3. In pending cases, including appeals, courts and prosecuting agencies should forward samples for Purity Tests to ascertain the percentage of the narcotic drug/psychotropic substance in mixtures or preparations. 4. The ratio laid down in E. Micheal Raj's case regarding Purity Tests applies to offenses committed on or before 17.11.2009. For offenses committed on or after 18.11.2009, the entire quantity of the mixture/preparation shall be decisive. The court directed the Registry to list the relevant cases before the learned Single Judges for appropriate orders and to circulate the order to all Special Courts for NDPS Act in the State.
|
