9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 548 - SC - CustomsAppeal against Judgement and Order passed by High Court - Offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Revenue contended that High Court has fallen into error by converting the conviction from Section 20(b)(ii) (C) to Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act and criticized the finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court stating the same as vulnerable in law Respondent holds that High Court has rightly converted the offence from Section 20(b)(ii) (C) to Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act Further contended that the reliance on the authorities placed by the High Court cannot be found fault with and discretion exercised by the High Court cannot be regarded as injudicious warranting interference. Held That - Court did not concur with the decision taken by the High Court that seized item was a commercial quantity hence the conviction recorded by the trial court under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) is absolutely impeccable - Judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the Respondents are held guilty - Appeal allowed and judgment is modified Appeal allowed judgement made in favour of the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's conversion of conviction from Section 20(b)(ii)(C) to Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 2. Determination of the quantity of narcotic drugs for sentencing. 3. Applicability of amendments and notifications to the NDPS Act. 4. Interpretation of "commercial quantity" and "small quantity" under the NDPS Act. 5. Validity of the High Court's reliance on specific case laws. 6. Imposition of minimum mandatory sentences. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the High Court's Conversion of Conviction: The High Court converted the conviction from Section 20(b)(ii)(C) (commercial quantity) to Section 20(b)(ii)(B) (intermediate quantity) of the NDPS Act, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone (more than seven years) and a fine of Rs. 25,000 each. The Supreme Court found this conversion erroneous, emphasizing that the contraband articles seized were indeed of commercial quantity, thereby upholding the trial court's original conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C). 2. Determination of the Quantity of Narcotic Drugs for Sentencing: The High Court's determination was based on the percentage of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content in the seized charas, concluding it was intermediate quantity. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the seized charas, as defined under the NDPS Act, included any mixture with or without neutral material. The seized quantities (6 kg 200 gms and 4 kgs) clearly exceeded the threshold for commercial quantity, which is 1 kg as per the notification dated 19.10.2001. 3. Applicability of Amendments and Notifications: The Supreme Court noted that the amendments to the NDPS Act effective from 2.10.2001 applied to the case, as the contraband was seized in 2004. The Court dismissed the relevance of subsequent amendments and notes added after the seizure date, focusing on the provisions in force at the time of the offence. 4. Interpretation of "Commercial Quantity" and "Small Quantity": The NDPS Act defines "commercial quantity" and "small quantity" based on specific thresholds notified by the Central Government. The Supreme Court clarified that for charas, any quantity exceeding 1 kg is commercial. The High Court's focus on the THC content was misplaced, as the Act considers the total weight of the contraband, including any mixture. 5. Validity of the High Court's Reliance on Specific Case Laws: The High Court relied on cases like Amar Singh Ramaji Bhai Barot, Samiullah, and E. Micheal Raj to support its conversion. The Supreme Court distinguished these cases, emphasizing that they dealt with different contexts and substances. The Court reiterated that the entire weight of the seized charas, not just the THC content, should be considered for determining the quantity. 6. Imposition of Minimum Mandatory Sentences: The Supreme Court highlighted that Section 20(b)(ii)(C) mandates a minimum sentence of ten years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, which may extend to twenty years and Rs. 2 lakhs, respectively. The Court rejected the argument for reducing the sentence based on time already served, citing precedents that prohibit imposing lesser sentences than the statutory minimum. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The respondents were sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each, with an additional one-year imprisonment in case of default in payment of the fine.
|
