9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without any valid authorization. The counsel on behalf of the appellant State has extensively stressed that the actions of the accused Respondents amounts to clear violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S Act as it clearly prohibits possession of narcotic substances except for medicinal or scientific purposes - the trial courts after analyzing the evidence placed before them, held the accused Respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt and convicted them for offences committed under Section 21 and Section 22 of the N.D.P.S Act. Section 80 of the N.D.P.S Act, clearly lays down that application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is not barred, and provisions of N.D.P.S. Act can be applicable in addition to that of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The statute further clarifies that the provisions of the N.D.P.S Act are not in derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. In the present case, the accused-respondents had approached the High Court seeking suspension of sentence. However, in granting the aforesaid relief, the High Court erroneously made observations on the merits of the case while the appeals were still pending before it - the gravity of offence alleged ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the State having been aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 29th January, 2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, allowing the applications for suspension of sentence, preferred by the accused respondents herein under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and directing to release them on bail, while the Appeals are pending in the High Court. 3. In order to appreciate the merits of these appeals, brief facts which have emerged from the case of the prosecution need to be noted at the outset. In all these appeals, the accused respondents were apprehended with manufactured drugs and convicted by the Trial Court for offences committed under Section 21 or Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.SAct ). The alleged offences and conviction recorded by the Trial Court against the respondents are listed below: S.NO. CASE NO. NAME OF ACCUSED RECOVERY CONVICTION JUDGMENT BY DATE 1. CRA S-840 SB 2015 Rakesh Kumar 3500 tabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne. Judge, Special Court, SBS Nagar 09.12.2016 9. CRA Baljinder 7500 mls of Corex U/s 22 of Judge, S-766 SB 2017 Singh @ Banty syrup containing Codeine phosphate NDPS Act 10 years RI ₹ 1.00 lac fine. Special Court, Sangrur 20.12.2016 10. CRA S 1413 SB 2017 Sukhraj Kaur @ Raj 120 bottles of Rexcof containing Codeine phosphate U/s 22 of NDPS Act 10 years RI ₹ 1.00 lac fine. Judge, Special Court, Sangrur 08.03.2017 11. CRA S 4055 SB 2016 Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi 25 gms Heroin 250 gms intoxicating powder containing Alprazolam U/s 21 of NDPS Act 10 years RI ₹ 1.00 lac fine. Judge, Special Court, Amritsar 06.09.2016 12. CRA S 2933 SB 2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... da 24.10.2013 19. CRA S 1529 SB 2017 Jaspal Singh 12 vials of Rexcof containing codeine Phosphate U/s 22 of NDPS Act 10 years RI ₹ 1.00 lac fine. Judge, Special Court, Sangrur 07.03.2017 20. CRA S 750 SB 2014 Sanjiv Kumar Paramjit Singh @ Pamma 1300 tablets weighing 101, 400 gms from Sanjiv Kumar; 400 tablets weighing 31.200 gms from Paramjit Singh @ Pamma U/s 22 of NDPS Act 10 years RI ₹ 1.00 lac fine. Judge, Special Court III, Ferozepur 27.01.2014 21. CRA S 4894 SB 2015 Akash Kumar 3500 mls containing Codeine Phosphate U/s 22 of NDPS Act 10 years RI ₹ 1.00 lac fine. Judge, Special Court, Sangrur 16.10.2015 22. CRA S 2574 SB 2017 Satnam Singh 20 vials of Rexcof containing Dextropropoxyphene U/s 22of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned judgment is in gross violation of the decision rendered in Inderjeet Singh v. State of Punjab 2014 (3) RCR (Criminal) 953, by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The counsel also relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) 13 SCC 1, wherein it was clearly held that dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is permissible only if it is for medical or scientific purposes. But even the usage for medical and scientific purposes is not restriction free, as it is subject to rules under the N.D.P.S Act. 6. On the contrary, the counsel on behalf of the accused respondents has supported the reasoning of the High Court while stating that it is very farfetched to presume that, any person who is apprehended with bulk quantity of manufactured drug, without having a license for the same, has committed an offence which is liable to be prosecuted under the N.D.P.S Act. The counsel further submitted that, the High Court was correct to conclude that, it can be considered as a violation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Therefore, there was no error in granting the relief of suspension ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of ganja or the production, possession, use, consumption, purchase, sale, transport, warehousing, import interState and export inter State of ganja for any purpose other than medical and scientific purpose shall take effect only from the date which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. 10. Further, Section 21 provides for punishment for contraventions in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations and Section 22 provides for punishment for contraventions in relation to psychotropic substances. Both the above provisions provide for the imposition of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and the imposition of a fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may be extended to two lakh rupees, if the recovered substance amounts to commercial quantity. However, the proviso appended thereto empowers the Court, with a discretionary power to impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees for reasons to be recorded in the judgment. 11. In the present case, the accused respondents were found in bulk possession of manufactured drugs without any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of N.D.P.S. Act can be applicable in addition to that of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The statute further clarifies that the provisions of the N.D.P.S Act are not in derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This Court in the case of Union of India vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra), has held that, 35. 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. (emphasis supplied) 15. The aforesaid decision further clarifies that, the N.D.P.S Act, should not be read in exclusion to Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Additionally, it is the prerogative of the State to prosecute the offender in accordance with law. In the present case, since the action of the accused Respondents amounted to a prima facie violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S Act, they were charged under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S Act. 16. In light of above observations, we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
