2020 (2) TMI 220 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Bail - seizure of narcotics and psychotropic substances - alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 8, 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 - HELD THAT - The provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 cannot be read in exclusion to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and that if the action of an accused amounts to a prima facie violation of Section 8 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the circumstances and the gravity of the offence does not entitle such an accused to be granted bail. There is no ground for grant of bail and the application is thus, declined.

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973.
2. Alleged violation of NDPS Act, 1985 and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
3. Incriminating evidence and statements.
4. Applicability of Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985.
5. Commercial quantity and therapeutic use of drugs.
6. Previous criminal antecedents and financial condition of the petitioner.
7. Interplay between NDPS Act, 1985 and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973:
The petitioner sought bail in Sessions Case No. 374/2018 for alleged offenses under Sections 8, 21, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The court evaluated the submissions from both the petitioner and the respondent, including written submissions and replies.

2. Alleged Violation of NDPS Act, 1985 and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945:
The petitioner, proprietor of M/s City Enterprises, and the co-accused, proprietor of M/s Shiv Medicos, were accused of not following Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The co-accused was found with a large quantity of narcotics and psychotropic medicines without proper documentation, violating Rule 65A of the NDPS Act, 1985.

3. Incriminating Evidence and Statements:
The investigation revealed frequent calls between the co-accused and the petitioner. A search of the petitioner's premises yielded no incriminating evidence, but the petitioner admitted in a voluntary statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, to selling narcotics and psychotropic medicines illegally without maintaining sale records.

4. Applicability of Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985:
The petitioner argued that the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, did not apply as the quantities of certain drugs did not meet the commercial threshold. However, the respondent contended that the petitioner had sold large quantities of narcotics and psychotropic substances in violation of the NDPS Act, 1985, and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

5. Commercial Quantity and Therapeutic Use of Drugs:
The petitioner claimed that codeine syrups sold were for therapeutic purposes and within permissible limits. The respondent argued that the large quantities sold without bills indicated diversion for non-therapeutic use, invoking the penal provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985.

6. Previous Criminal Antecedents and Financial Condition of the Petitioner:
The petitioner cited his lack of previous criminal records and financial hardship due to prolonged custody. However, the respondent highlighted significant cash deposits in the petitioner's account, suggesting illegal activities.

7. Interplay between NDPS Act, 1985 and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940:
The court referred to precedents establishing that the NDPS Act, 1985, operates in addition to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Violations of the latter can lead to prosecution under the former, especially for offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotics and psychotropic substances.

Conclusion:
The court found no grounds for granting bail, citing the gravity of the offenses, the prima facie evidence of illegal activities, and the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The bail application was thus declined.

← Previous Next →