9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 841 - SC - CustomsAcquittal of accused - offences under Sections 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act. - appellant submitted that the High Court grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that in the absence of proof that the Ganja allegedly seized from the custody of the respondent is of foreign origin, Section 23 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. - construction of Section 23 of the NDPS Act - Held that - the expression tranships occurring therein must necessarily be understood as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent. It can be seen from the language of the Section 9(1) that the Central Government is authorized to make rules which may permit and regulate various activities such as cultivation, gathering, production, possession, sale, transport, inter state import or export of various substances like coca leaves, poppy straw, opium poppy and opium derivatives etc., while the Parliament used the expression transport in the context of inter-state import or export of such material in sub- Section 1(a)(vi), in the context of importing to India and export out of India, Parliament employed the expression transhipment in Section 9(i)(a)(vii). Therefore, the High Court rightly concluded that the conviction of the respondent under Section 23 of the NDPS Act cannot be sustained. - Decided against the revenue.
Issues:
1. Appeal against judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2003 of the High Court of Patna by the Union of India. 2. Conviction of accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. Interpretation of Section 23 of the NDPS Act regarding transhipment and import/export activities. 4. Validity of the High Court's decision in setting aside the conviction under Section 23 of the NDPS Act. Analysis: 1. The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2003. The High Court had set aside the conviction of three accused under the NDPS Act by the trial court. The respondent was convicted under Section 23 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. 2. The High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent and overturned his conviction under Section 23 of the NDPS Act. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the High Court erred in requiring proof that the seized Ganja was of foreign origin for Section 23 to apply. The prosecution's failure to prove the substance seized was ganja was also contested. 3. The interpretation of Section 23 of the NDPS Act was crucial in this case. The respondent's counsel argued that the section covers activities like import, export, and transhipment of narcotic drugs. It was contended that in the absence of evidence showing the respondent was involved in contraband activities related to import or export, Section 23 should not apply. The Court agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing the significance of the term "tranships" within the section and its context. 4. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the respondent's conviction under Section 23 of the NDPS Act. It was noted that the language of the Act and the Central Government's rule-making powers supported the conclusion that the respondent's actions did not fall within the scope of Section 23. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no need to review other aspects of the High Court's acquittal decisions. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision.
|
