2017 (12) TMI 1599 - HC - Customs

Import of Contraband goods - prosecution case is that on 7-2-2017, the petitioner illicitly imported huge quantity of 180 Kgs. of khat leaves of African origin to India - petitioner seeks orders on the ground that the khat leaf does not come under the definition of Psychotropic Substance or Narcotic Drug under the NDPS Act - whether the substance seized from his possession is Psychotropic Substance or not? Held that - Admittedly, it is a quantity of 180 Kgs. of khat leaves. The substance was subjected to analysis at the laboratory. On analysis, it was found containing cathinone and cathine . These two are Psychotropic Substances included in the Schedule to the NDPS Act. Cathinone is listed as item No. 125 in the Schedule, and cathine is listed as item No. 171 in the Schedule. Of course, khat leaves, by that name is not seen listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act. The question for consideration is not how the substance is called, or what is its scientific name or botanical name, but what does it contain. The substance allegedly seized from the hands of the accused was found containing two prohibited Psychotropic Substances listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act - The Court cannot take things technically and mechanically quash the prosecution saying that the substance by name khat leaves is not included or listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of proceedings under NDPS Act for illicit importation of "khat leaves" of African origin containing cathinone and cathine.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings against him in relation to the illicit importation of 180 Kgs. of "khat leaves" of African origin, arguing that "khat leaves" do not fall under the definition of Psychotropic Substance or Narcotic Drug under the NDPS Act and are not listed in the Schedule to the Act. However, the substance seized from the petitioner was analyzed and found to contain "cathinone" and "cathine," both of which are Psychotropic Substances listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act. The Court emphasized that the focus should be on the substance's content rather than its name or botanical classification. As the seized substance contained prohibited Psychotropic Substances, it fell under the definition of Psychotropic Substance under Section 2(xxii) of the NDPS Act. The Court highlighted that possession of any substance containing such Psychotropic Substances renders one liable to prosecution under the Act, irrespective of the substance's specific name. Therefore, the Court rejected the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that technicalities cannot be used to quash prosecution under the NDPS Act.

This judgment underscores the importance of substance content over nomenclature in determining liability under the NDPS Act. It clarifies that possession of substances containing prohibited Psychotropic Substances, even if not explicitly named in the Act, warrants prosecution. The Court's decision highlights the legislative intent to prevent circumvention of the Act through semantic arguments and underscores the broad scope of liability under the NDPS Act based on substance composition rather than specific names. The judgment serves as a precedent for interpreting and applying the NDPS Act in cases involving substances not explicitly listed but containing prohibited Psychotropic Substances, ensuring effective enforcement of drug control laws.