Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Interpretation of:
Held: The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole – It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. [Para 39(i)]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Nature of:
Held: While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature – Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. [Para 39(ii)] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.52A – Purpose of:
Held: The purpose of insertion of Section 52A laying down the procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure the early disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances – It was inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to implement and to give effect to the International Conventions on the Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. [Para 39(iii)]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.52A – Consequence of any lapse or delayed compliance: Held: Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, and any lapse or delayed compliance thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity which would neither entitle the accused to be released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on that ground alone. [Para 39(iv)] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.52A – Would any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself make the entire evidence inadmissible:
Held: Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible – The Court would have to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused. [Para 39(v)]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.52A, 54 – Statutory presumption:
Held: Any lapse or delay in compliance of s.52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail – The Court will have to consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible u/s.
54 of the NDPS Act. [Para 39(vi)]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.52A, 37 – The High Court solely on the ground of belated compliance of s.52A of the NDPS Act granted bail to the respondent – Correctness:
Held: The High Court without considering as to whether the twin conditions mentioned in clause (b) sub-section (1) of s.37 were fulfilled or not, concluded without any material on record that s.37 was not attracted as there was non-compliance of s.52A of the said Act within reasonable time – The Appellant-NCB having opposed the bail application, it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to record a satisfaction on the cumulative conditions namely, that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent- accused was not guilty of the alleged offences and that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail, as contemplated in s.37(1)(b) of the said Act – The non-recording of such satisfaction which is mandatory in nature, has rendered the impugned order of High Court fallacious and untenable – As far as s.52A is concerned, sub-section (2) of s.52A specifies the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, for the disposal of the seized contraband or controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances – Any deviation or delay in making the application under subsection (2) by the concerned officer to the Magistrate or the delay on the part of the Magistrate in deciding such application could at the most be termed as an irregularity and not an illegality which would nullify or vitiate the entire case of the prosecution – It is settled that an irregularity may be overlooked or corrected without affecting the outcome, whereas an illegality may lead to nullification of the proceedings – Also, as per s.54 of the said Act, the courts are entitled to presume, unless and until the contrary is proved that the accused had committed an offence under the Act in respect of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance etc. for the possession of which he failed to account satisfactorily – An anomalous situation would arise if a non-compliance or delayed compliance of s.52A is held to be vitiating the trial or entitling the accused to be released on bail, though he is found to have possessed the contraband substance, and even if the statutory presumption is not rebutted by him – Such could not be the intention of the legislature – Thus, the impugned order based on the inferences and surmises, in utter disregard of the statutory provision of the Act and in utter disregard of the mandate contained in s.37 of the Act, and granting bail to the accused merely on the ground that the compliance of s.52A was not done within reasonable time, is highly erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. [Paras 11, 23, 25, 40]
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.