Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.36-A, 58 – In a trial regarding recovery of the opium from the accused persons, the Special Judge vide final judgment dated 22.02.2007 convicted one RS and acquitted three accused persons – The Special Judge observed in the said judgment that the story wherein RS was implicated by the trio was made up by the Senior Police officials including the appellant herein and it was found to be false and concocted, and hence on 26.02.2007 show-cause notice u/s.58 of the NDPS Act was issued against the appellant – The challenge to the show cause notice before the High Court was dismissed – On 30.05.2008, the Special Judge placed the typed and dictated order in a sealed cover and adjourned the matter – Appellant filed Criminal Revision – The High Court, vide the impugned final judgment and order dated 14.10.2010 dismissed the Criminal Revision and upheld the order of the Special Judge dated 30.05.2008:
Held: The proceedings which were initiated by the Special Judge against the appellant were for the offence punishable for which the maximum sentence provided in the NDPS Act was up to two years – s.36-A (5) of the NDPS Act which begins with the non-obstante clause provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C., the offences punishable under this Act with imprisonment for a term of not more than three years may be tried summarily – So, the statutory scheme, according to the provisions of s.36-A(5) of the NDPS Act, prescribes that, for convicting a person u/s.
58 of the NDPS Act, he/she must be tried summarily – Further, s.260 of the Cr.P.C. provides that the power to try summarily is with any Judicial Magistrate, any Metropolitan Magistrate or any Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court – It is thus clear that the Special Judge could not have conducted the proceedings against the present appellant for the offence punishable u/s.58 of the NDPS Act inasmuch as such proceedings could have been conducted only by a Magistrate – In the Judgment and order dated 22/24.02.2007, the Special Judge recorded the findings against the appellant as well as the other police officers without even issuing notice to them – The Special Judge almost found her guilty of the offence punishable u/s. 58 of the NDPS Act – Moreover while doing so, neither any notice nor was any opportunity of being heard given to her – Within 10 days, from 20.05.2008 to 30.05.2008, the Special Judge directed the matter to be heard on 7 dates – During the said period, the appellant was directed to supervise and ensure the maintenance of law and order inasmuch as the situation had deteriorated on account of some agitation where she was posted – The same was also brought to the notice of the Special Judge – However, on 30.05.2008, the Special Judge proceeded to dictate and type the order and kept the same in a sealed cover – It is thus clear that the Special Judge had given a complete go-bye to all the principles of natural justice – The Special Judge acted in a predetermined manner – There was total non-application of mind – Thus, the judgment and order dated 14.10.2010 passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision, judgment and order of conviction/acquittal dated 22/24.02.2007 in paragraphs 49 and 50 and the notice issued by the Special Judge dated 26.02.2007 to the appellant u/s. 58 of the NDPS Act and all subsequent proceedings including the order dictated and typed on 30.05.2008 by the Special Judge are quashed and set aside. [Paras 21, 24, 25, 26, 33, 35, 40] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.69 – Protection of action taken in good faith – discussed. [Paras 28-31]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.