9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (10) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the issue of the Rules, the appellant was called upon to take out a licence and pay the necessary excise duty. The appellant refused to do so and in November 1962 filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging inter alia the validity of the Rules. It may be mentioned that the Rules were issued under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Intoxicating Drugs Act, No. IV of 1333 Fasli, (hereinafter referred to as the 1333-F Act) as amended by the Hyderabad Opium and intoxicating Drugs (Amendment) Act, No. XXII of 1953. 2. The main contention of the appellant in the High Court was that the 1333-F Act had been repealed in toto on the introduction of the Dangerous Drugs Act, No. 2 of 1930 by the Opium and Revenue Laws (Extension of application) Act, No. 33 of 1950, and of the Drugs Act, No. 23 of 1940 by the Part B States (Laws) Act, No. III of 1951, and therefore there was no power in the Hyderabad legislature to amend it by Act 22 of 1953. In consequence there was no low in force on the basis of which the Rules could be promulgated in 1962. Secondly, it was contended that even if the 1333-F Act did not stand repealed as above, the Rules frame by the State of Andhra Pradesh i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f List II for the purpose of duties of excise thereon and for such control as may be required for the purpose of collecting the duties of excise. Thus for the purpose of cultivation and manufacture opium is exclusively a Union subject but for the purpose of duties of excise it is an exclusive State subject. Take another substance like chloral hydrate with we are concerned in the present appeal. It is undoubtedly a drug and therefore falls under item 19 of List III. Drugs being in the Concurrent List both the Union and the State can thereon. There are two Central Acts which deals with drugs, namely, the Dangerous Drugs Act 1930 and the Drugs Act, 1940. Now a substance may fall under the Dangerous Drugs Act it is so defined there. It may also fall under the Drugs Act and may be subject to its provisions if so indicated therein. But at the same time a substance which is a drug may also fall under item 51 of List II if it is a narcotic or is a narcotic drug. Even intoxicating liquor which falls under entry 8 of List II as well as under entry 51 of List II may fall under entry 19 of List if it is a drug. This will show that even if a substance is governed by the Dangerous Drugs Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act and provided for licences and collection of duties of excise and made provisions incidental thereto. We have already said that Act applied not only to opium and the four intoxicating drugs mentioned therein but also to other substances which might be notified thereunder. It continued in force in the Part B State of Hyderabad after the Constitution came into force in January 1950. 8. In 1950, Parliament applied the Opium Act (No. 13 of 1857), the Opium Act (1 of 1878) and the Dangerous Drugs Act (No. 2 of 1930) to the Part B State of Hyderabad by Central Act 33 of 1950. Section 4 of this Act inter alia provided that if immediately before the commencement of this Act there was in force in any Part B State, other than Jammu and Kashmir, any law corresponding to any of the Acts specified therein, that law would upon the commencement of this Act, stand repealed. 9. The Dangerous Drugs Act deals with coca-leaf, coca derivative, hemp including bhang, siddhi, ganja, charas, medicinal hemp, opium and opium derivative. It also gave power to Central Government to notify any narcotic substance as a manufactured drug under certain circumstances. The Dangerous Drugs Act thus deals, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 1333-F Act. It remained alive even so far as opium, charas, bhang and ganja were concerned for the purpose of collection of duties of excise thereon. It also remained alive with respect to other substances which might be notified as intoxicating drugs under the 1333-F Act. If there was any such notification between 1924 and 1950 that notification would remain valid and the 1333-F Act would apply to it. If there was no such notification, the 1333-F Act would remain on the statute book as a conditional statute under which a notification in respect of any substance could issued. The argument that the introduction of the Dangerous Drug Act in 1950 completely repealed the 1333-F Act has no force and must fail. 10. Then we come to the Drugs Act of 1940 which was extended to the Part B State of Hyderabad by the Central Act III of 1951. Section 6 of the 1951-Act provides that if immediately before the appointed day, there is in force in any Part B State any law corresponding to any of the Acts or Ordinances now extended to that State, that law shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, stand repealed . It is not in dispute that chloral hydrate was controlled under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t could not be said to have completely repealed the 1333-F Act which dealt with matters not covered by the Dangerous Drugs Act at all, (namely, collection of duties of excise of matters incidental thereto). The same in our opinion applies to the Drugs Act which did not deal at all with the collection of duties of excise on drugs covered by it. Therefore the 1333-F Act insofar as it deals with the collection of duties of excise on any drugs which are narcotics or narcotic drugs would remain alive to that extent. There can be no doubt therefore that the 1333-F Act continued in existence so far as it dealt with collection of duties of excise on substances covered by it and it could therefore be amended by Hyderabad Act No. 22 of 1953. 11. This brings us to the second point raised in the present appeal, namely, that even if the 1333-F Act had not been completely repealed by the introduction of the Dangerous Drugs Act and the Drugs Act and could be properly amended by the Hyderabad Act of 1953, the Rules were not within the power conferred by the Act. For that purpose we have to look at the 1333-F Act as it stands after the amendment of 1953. The amended Act defines intoxicating dru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake out a licence and pay excise duty on the manufacture thereof, even though chloral hydrate may be a drug which is controlled under the Drug Act. 12. The case of the State Government in this connection is that chloral hydrate is a narcotic drug or a narcotic within the meaning of entry 51 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. Its further case is that it increases intoxication if mixed with liquor and that it is being produced in large quantities in order that it may be mixed with liquor. That is the reason why the State has framed the Rules to control the production of chloral hydrate. The appellant in its writ petition admitted that chloral hydrate was used in small does as a hypnotic and sedative. Now the dictionary meaning of the word narcotic is a substance which relieves pain, produces sleep, and in large doses brings on stupor, coma, and even death, as opium, hemlock, alcohol etc. Obviously, therefore, if chloral hydrate is hypnotic and sedative as admitted by the appellant, it would be a narcotic. The appellant however relies on the statement in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of show that chloral hydrate is not a narcotic or a narcotic drug within the meanin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
