Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.2(xvii)(a) and (b) and s.15 – Conviction in relation to ‘poppy straw’ – ‘Poppy straw’ defined to mean all parts of ‘opium poppy’ except the seeds – ‘Opium poppy’ defined under Clause (xvii) of s.2 of the 1985 Act – As per sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii) of s.2 of the 1985 Act, ‘opium poppy’ means the plant of the species ‘papaver somniferum L’ – As per sub-clause (b) thereof, ‘opium poppy’ would also mean the plant of any other species of ‘papaver’ from which ‘opium’ or any ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ can be extracted and which the Central Government, by notification in the official gazette, has declared to be ‘opium poppy’ for the purposes of the 1985 Act – Whether it is sufficient for the prosecution to establish that the raw material contains ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’ to bring it under sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii) of s.2 of the Act or is it necessary for the prosecution to further establish that, though the seized material contains ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’, the genus of the seized material is ‘papaver somniferum L’ or any other species of ‘papaver’ from which ‘opium’ or any ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ can be extracted and which is notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government to be ‘opium poppy’ for the purposes of the 1985 Act – High Court was of the opinion that the tests conducted by the Chemical Examiner to ascertain whether ‘meconic acid’ and ‘morphine’ were present in the sample stuff, were not enough to reach the conclusion that the stuff was, in fact, ‘poppy straw’ – Held: Prior to enactment of the 1985 Act, it was only the plant ‘papaver somniferum L’ which was included in the definition of 1878 and 1930 enactments – By virtue of sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act, the same has been retained – However, noticing that there was some material to show that some other species of ‘papaver’ may also be used for the production of ‘opium’, the legislature, by an abundant precaution, also added sub-clause (b) in Clause (xvii) of s.2 of the 1985 Act so as to enable the Central Government to notify such a species from which ‘opium’ or any ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ can be extracted – The legislative intent is clear that the 1985 Act, in addition to retaining the species of ‘papaver somniferum L’ in the definition of ‘opium poppy’, enabled the Central Government to include any other species of ‘papaver’ from which ‘opium’ or any ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ could be extracted – The legislative intent is to bring any other species of ‘papaver’ which can be used for manufacture of ‘opium’ within the prohibitory and regulatory provisions of the 1985 Act – Once it is established that the seized material contains ‘meconic acid’ and ‘morphine’, it will be sufficient to establish that it is derived from the plant ‘papaver somniferum L’ as defined in sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act – Once a Chemical Examiner establishes that the seized ‘poppy straw’ indicates a positive test for the contents of ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’, it is sufficient to establish that it is covered by subclause (a) of Clause
(xvii) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act and no further test would be necessary for establishing that the seized material is a part of ‘papaver somniferum L’.
Interpretation of Statutes – Heydon’s/Mischief Rule – Meaning of – Discussed – Four factors to be considered while applying the rule (i) position before enactment of the Act (ii) mischief and defects for which the earlier enactments did not provide (iii) remedy (iv) reason of the remedy – Held: Legislature by incorporating subclause (a) in Clause (xvii) of s.2 of the 1985 Act, intended to continue ‘papaver somniferum L’ in the definition of ‘opium poppy’ – However, by taking abundant precautions and to take care of a situation where any other species of ‘papaver’ was found to be used for the production of ‘opium’, the legislature vested the Central Government with a power to include such a variety to mean ‘opium poppy’ for the purpose of the 1985 Act – The defect noticed by the legislature was that, though ‘papaver somniferum L’, which contained ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’ and was used for the production of ‘opium’, was already included in the definition of ‘opium’ in the earlier enactments, there was also a possibility of other variety of ‘papaver’ being used for ‘opium’ production, but could not be brought under the prohibitory and regulatory measures – The remedy, which the Parliament provided was by way of incorporating subclause (b) in Clause (xvii) of s.2 of the 1985 Act thereby empowering the Central Government to notify any other species of ‘papaver’ from which ‘opium’ or any other ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ could be extracted, to be declared as ‘opium poppy’ for the purpose of the 1985 Act – The true reason for the remedy was to empower the Central Government to include any other species of ‘papaver’ which may be used for the production of ‘opium’ and bring the same under the purview of the 1985 Act – The reason was that, if it is found that any species of ‘papaver’ is being used for the production of ‘opium’, the production of such a variety should not be permitted and the same be brought under the prohibitory and regulatory measures as provided under the 1985 Act – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.2(xvii) (a) and (b) –Opium Act,1878 – Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930.
Interpretation of Statutes – Purposive interpretation – Principles of – Held: Settled principle of law that an enactment has to be incorporated in such a manner which advances the purpose of the Act rather than interpreting in such a manner which defeats the purpose of the Act – The dominant purpose of the Act, 1985 was to curb the menace of trafficking of drugs and psychotropic substances – Therefore, the interpretation which advances the purpose of the Act, 1985 has to be preferred rather than adopting a pedantic and a mechanical approach – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Since many deficiencies were found in the earlier enactments and the provisions therein were not found sufficient to deal with the problems of drug trafficking, it was found necessary to enact a new law since after passing of the earlier three Acts (the Opium Act, 1857, the Opium Act,1878 and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930), there were tremendous developments on an international platform and a vast body of international law in the field of narcotics control had evolved through various international treaties and protocols. The Government of India had been a party to these treaties and conventions which entailed several obligations which were not covered or were only partly covered under the old Acts. It was further noticed that the scheme of the earlier Acts was not a sufficient deterrent to meet the challenge of well-organized gangs of smugglers. It was further noticed that the penalty provided under the old Acts was inadequate. Taking into consideration that the country had, for the last many years, been increasingly faced with the problem of trafficking of drugs, which had posed serious problems to governments at the State and Centre, it was found necessary to enact a comprehensive law. It is thus clear that the dominant purpose of the new enactment was to curb the menace of trafficking of drugs and psychotropic substances. Therefore, the interpretation which advances the purpose of the Act has to be preferred rather than adopting a pedantic and a mechanical approach. [Para 81][411-G-H; 412-A-C]
2. It was well recognized under the earlier enactments, International Conventions and scientific studies that ‘papaver somniferum L’ plant was the main source for the production of ‘opium’. The Opium Act, 1878 so also the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 had recognized this position. In the International Conventions also, this was recognized. Though for the first time in the 1953 Protocol, in addition to “papaver somniferum L’, any other species of ‘papaver’, which may be used for the production of ‘opium’ was included in the definition of ‘opium’, the subsequent conventions of 1961 and 1988 again defined ‘opium poppy’ as a plant of ‘papaver somniferum L’. [Para 82][412-D-E]
3. Prior to enactment of the 1985 Act, it was only the plant ‘papaver somniferum L’ which was included in the definition of 1878 and 1930 enactments. By virtue of sub-clause (a) of Clause
(xvii) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act, the same has been retained. However, noticing that there was some material to show that some other species of ‘papaver’ may also be used for the production of ‘opium’, the legislature, by an abundant precaution, also added sub-clause (b) in Clause (xvii) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act so as to enable the Central Government to notify such a species from which ‘opium’ or any ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ can be extracted. The legislative intent is clear that the 1985 Act, in addition to retaining the species of ‘papaver somniferum L’ in the definition of ‘opium poppy’, enabled the Central Government to include any other species of ‘papaver’ from which ‘opium’ or any ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ could be extracted. This declaration has to be done by a notification published in the official gazette. The legislative intent is to bring any other species of ‘papaver’ which can be used for manufacture of ‘opium’ within the prohibitory and regulatory provisions of the 1985 Act. [Para 83][412-G-H; 413-A-C]
4. If the view as taken by the High Court is to be accepted, a person who has been found contravening the provisions of the 1985 Act and dealing with a contraband material which has been found in the Chemical Examiner’s report to contain ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’, would escape the stringent provisions of the 1985 Act. The said could never have been the intention of the legislature. If the view as taken by the High Court is to be accepted, the same would frustrate the object of the Act and defeat its very purpose. [Para 84][413-D]
5. The High Court was not justified in holding that, even after the Chemical Examiner’s report establishes that the contraband contains ‘meconic acid’ and ‘morphine’, unless it was established that the same was derived from the species of ‘papaver somniferum L’, conviction under Section 15 of the 1985 Act could not be sustained. [Para 88][414-D]
6. Once it is established that the seized material contains ‘meconic acid’ and ‘morphine’, it will be sufficient to establish that it is derived from the plant ‘papaver somniferum L’ as defined in sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act. [Para 89][414-E]
7. The High Court was also not justified in observing that the Chemical Examiner’s report, in the alternative, should establish that the seized material is a part of any other species of ‘papaver’ from which ‘opium’ or any ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ could be extracted and which has been notified by the Central Government as ‘opium’ for the purpose of the 1985 Act. One fails to understand as to how a Chemical Examiner could be asked whether the seized material was a part of any other species of ‘papaver’ from which ‘opium’ or any other ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ could be extracted when there is no such species of ‘papaver’ which has been notified by the Central Government to be ‘opium poppy’ for the purpose of the 1985 Act. [Para 90][414-F-H]
8. Once a Chemical Examiner establishes that the seized ‘poppy straw’ indicates a positive test for the contents of ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’, it is sufficient to establish that it is covered by subclause (a) of Clause (xvii) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act and no further test would be necessary for establishing that the seized material is a part of ‘papaver somniferum L’. In other words, once it is established that the seized ‘poppy straw’ tests positive for the contents of ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’, no other test would be necessary for bringing home the guilt of the accused under the provisions of Section 15 of the 1985 Act. [Para 91][415-A-B]
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar and Others [1955] 2 SCR 603 – followed.
State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and Others (1986)
4 SCC 746 : [1987] 1 SCR 317; Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Limited and Another (1987) 4 SCC 361 : [1988] 1 SCR 168; Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I., Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 263; Balram Kumawat v. Union of India and Others (2003) 7 SCC 628 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 24; Standard Chartered Bank and Others v.
Directorate of Enforcement and Others (2005) 4 SCC
530 : [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 49; Hira Singh and Another v. Union of India and Another (2020) 20 SCC 272 and E. Micheal Raj v. Narcotics Control Bureau (2008) 5 SCC 161 : [2008] 4 SCR 644 – relied on.
Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, (2005)
7 SCC 550; State of M.P. and Others v. Ram Singh (2000) 5 SCC 88 : [2000] 1 SCR 579; Swantraj and Others v. State of Maharashtra (1975) 3 SCC 322 : [1974] 3 SCR 287; NEPC Micon Limited and Others v. Magma Leasing Limited (1999) 4 SCC 253 : [1999] 2 SCR 932; Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 4 SCC 441: [2011] 5 SCR 691 – referred to.
Baidyanath Mishra and Another v. The State of Orissa 1968 (XXXIV) Cuttack Law Times-I 5;Hathi @
Mangalsinh Ramdayalji v. State of Gujarat 1992 SCC OnLine Guj 311; Rajiv Kumar alias Guglu v. State of H.P. 8 2007 SCC OnLine HP 120 and State of H.P. v. Des Raj 2013 SCC OnLine HP 371 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.