2015 (10) TMI 2706 - HC - Indian Laws

Vires of Notification bearing S.O.No.2941(E)/2009 dated 18.11.2009 - alleged offences under Sections 22(c), 27(A), 28, 29, 30 read with 8(c) of NDPS Act, read with Sections 116, 193, 195, 196, 120(b), 417, 109, 342, 466, 468, 469, 471, 420, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 and Sections 7, 15, 13(2), 13(1)(d), 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Rules 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - interpretation of statute. Held that - All that Note No.4 inserted by the impugned Notification says is that the quantities shown in columns 5 and 6 of the table relating to the respective drugs shown in Column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or anyone or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters, ethers and salts of these drugs. It includes salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just its pure drug content. We do not find the Notification to be either Legislative in nature or to be suffering from any excessive delegation. Once the Parliament thought fit to delegate the function of identifying small quantities and commercial quantities under the Act, by way of Notifications in the Gazette, the exercise of such a power cannot be taken to be unconstitutional or ultravires of the Act, unless the very delegation is found to be illegal. Note No.4 inserted by the impugned Notification does not make any new substance, which is not already stipulated as a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The mischief sought to be avoided by the Notification is too obvious to be seen. The Law does not want persons possessing quantities of prohibited drugs in combination with other drugs to escape the graded punishments stipulated in Section 18 of the NDPS Act. The object of the Notification is to remove the mischief. The Notification is neither unconstitutional nor ultravires of the Act. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the constitutionality of a notification under the NDPS Act regarding small and commercial quantities.

Analysis:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with a criminal complaint under various sections of the NDPS Act and IPC. The petitioner sought a declaration that a specific notification was unconstitutional. The NDPS Act categorizes contraventions into small, intermediary, and commercial quantities, with definitions provided for each. The Central Government issues notifications to specify these quantities. The petitioner argued that a new note in a 2009 notification could lead to misunderstanding by enforcement authorities, potentially altering the weight calculation for determining possession quantity. The petitioner contended that this amendment encroached upon legislative functions or constituted excessive delegation.

The court considered previous Supreme Court judgments related to possession quantities and interpretations of small and commercial quantities under the NDPS Act. The court analyzed the petitioner's argument that the 2009 notification's note could lead to non-drugs being treated as drugs, impacting possession quantity calculations. The court disagreed, stating that the note clarified the application of quantities to mixtures or solutions of narcotic drugs or substances. The court found the notification did not introduce new substances but aimed to prevent individuals from evading penalties by possessing prohibited drugs in combination with other substances.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the notification was not unconstitutional or beyond the scope of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized that the Central Government's power to notify quantities under the Act was valid and had been exercised appropriately. The court concluded that the notification's purpose was to address a specific issue and ensure compliance with the Act's provisions, upholding the legality of the notification.