9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d special leave petition through jail. We appointed Mr Jayant Bhushan, Advocate, as amicus curiae to argue for him. We heard him and also the learned counsel for the State of Kerala. ( 3. ) THE case against the appellant is that he was found in possession of 110 ampoules of buprenorphine. (Its trade name is Tidigesic.) It is too late in the day for reappreciating the evidence for ascertaining whether as a matter of fact the appellant was not in possession of the aforesaid article. ( 4. ) THOUGH the investigating agency thought that the article recovered from the appellant was a narcotic substance, it is in fact a psychotropic substance. This is clearly discernible from Item 92 of the Schedule of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... six months or with fine or with both [unless the substance is not one falling under clause (a) of S.27]. ( 6. ) THE question to be considered by us is whether the psychotropic substance was in a small quantity and if so, whether it was intended for personal consumption. The words small quantity have been specified by the Central Govt. by the notification dated 23/7/1996. Learned counsel for the State has brought to our notice that as per the said notification small quantity has been specified as 1 gram. If so, the quantity recovered from the appellant is far below the limit of small quantity specified in the notification issued by the Central Govt. It is admitted that each ampoule contained only 2 ml and each ml contains only .3 mg. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is enough that he satisfies the judicial mind by a preponderance of probability. ( 8. ) ON account of the aforesaid fact situation, we are inclined to believe that the small quantity of buprenorphine (Tidigesic) was in the possession of the appellant for his personal consumption and, therefore, the offence committed by him would fall under S.27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. We, therefore, alter the conviction of the appellant to S.27 of the Act. We sentence him to the maximum provided under S.21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which is imprisonment for six months. He is already in jail for nearly six years by now. It is not necessary for us to say that he has been in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
