9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 695 - SC - CustomsRejection of bail application - Possession of psychotropic substance - prosecution under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - whether persons accused of committing an offence under the Act could be enlarged on bail in view of the stipulations contained under Section 37 - Held that - Section 8(c) in no uncertain terms prohibits the DEALING IN any manner in any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. However, an exception to such prohibition is also contained in the said Section - DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is permissible only when such DEALING is for medical purposes or scientific purposes. Further, the mere fact that the DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is for a medical or scientific purpose does not by itself lift the embargo created under section 8(c). Such a dealing must be in the manner and extent provided by the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders made thereunder. The Act does not contemplate framing of rules for prohibiting the various activities of DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Such prohibition is already contained in Section 8(c). It only contemplates of the framing of Rules for permitting and regulating any activity of DEALING IN narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. - conclusion reached by the various High Courts that prohibition contained under Section 8 is not attracted in respect to all those psychotropic substances which find a mention in the Schedule to the Act but not in Schedule-I to the Rules framed under the Act is untenable. Analysis of the implications of Section 80. Application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 not barred. The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) or the rules made thereunder. of the Act is not really called for in the instant case. It is only required to be stated that essentially the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 deals with various operations of manufacture, sale, purchase etc. of drugs generally whereas Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with a more specific class of drugs and, therefore, a special law on the subject. Further the provisions of the Act operate in addition to the provisions of 1940 Act. - Matter remitted to High court - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 80 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Application of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 regarding bail. 3. Relationship between the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 4. Validity of the Bombay High Court's interpretation of the absence of specific psychotropic substances in Schedule-I of the Rules. 5. Examination of the correctness of the Supreme Court's decision in Rajesh Kumar Gupta's case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 80 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: The judgment clarifies that Section 80 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) stipulates that the provisions of the NDPS Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This means that both Acts can operate concurrently, and the NDPS Act does not override the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The court emphasized that the NDPS Act deals with a specific class of drugs and is a special law on the subject, while the Drugs and Cosmetics Act deals with drugs generally. 2. Application of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 regarding bail: Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail to persons accused of offenses under the Act. The court reiterated that no person accused of an offense involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances can be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application, and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The court highlighted that these conditions are cumulative and not alternative, meaning both conditions must be satisfied for bail to be granted. 3. Relationship between the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: The court analyzed the relationship between the NDPS Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, emphasizing that the NDPS Act contains specific provisions for dealing with narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, while the Drugs and Cosmetics Act regulates drugs generally. The court clarified that the NDPS Act's provisions operate in addition to those of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and the latter does not override the former. 4. Validity of the Bombay High Court's interpretation of the absence of specific psychotropic substances in Schedule-I of the Rules: The Bombay High Court had held that if a psychotropic substance is not included in Schedule-I to the Rules, then operations covered by Section 8 of the NDPS Act cannot be said to contravene the Act. The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act prohibits dealing in any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance unless it is for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and extent provided by the Act or the rules made thereunder. The court held that the absence of a particular psychotropic substance in Schedule-I to the Rules does not exclude the application of Section 8 of the NDPS Act. 5. Examination of the correctness of the Supreme Court's decision in Rajesh Kumar Gupta's case: The court examined the decision in Rajesh Kumar Gupta's case, where it was held that the prohibition in Rule 63 of the 1985 Rules applies only to those narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances mentioned in Schedule-I to the Rules and not to those enumerated in the Schedule to the Act. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, stating that the prohibition in Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act applies to all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, regardless of their inclusion in Schedule-I to the Rules. The court held that the subordinate legislation (Rules) cannot create rights and obligations contrary to those contained in the parent Act (NDPS Act). Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the interpretation of Section 8(c) by various High Courts, including the Bombay High Court, was untenable. The court clarified that dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is prohibited unless it is for medical or scientific purposes and in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act and the rules made thereunder. The court also held that the decision in Rajesh Kumar Gupta's case was wrongly decided. The appeals were disposed of, and the matters were remitted to the concerned High Courts for passing appropriate orders in light of this judgment.
|
