Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.389 – Suspension of sentence – In the instant case, the respondents were apprehended with “manufactured drugs” and convicted by trial court under ss.21 and 22 of the NDPS Act – High Court allowed the applications for suspension of sentence filed by accused-respondents holding that, since the instant matters related to “manufactured drugs”, the respondents should have been tried for the violation of provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and not under the NDPS Act – State filed instant appeals – Held: While the Drugs and Cosmetics Act deals with drugs which are intended to be used for therapeutic or medicinal usage, the NDPS Act intends to curb and penalize the usage of drugs which are used for intoxication or for getting a stimulant effect – Thus, NDPS Act, should not be read in exclusion to Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Additionally, it is the prerogative of the State to prosecute the offender in accordance with law – In the instant case, since the action of the accused-Respondents amounted to a prima-facie violation of s.8 of the NDPS Act, they were charged under s.22 of the NDPS Act – The decision rendered by High Court that the accused-respondents must be tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 instead of the NDPS Act, as they were found in possession of the “manufactured drugs”, does not hold good in law – Further, the accused-respondents had approached the High Court seeking suspension of sentence – However, in granting the relief, the High Court erroneously made observations on the merits of the case while the appeals were still pending before it – In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case and gravity of offence alleged against accused-respondents, the order of High Court directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail was clearly unsustainable in law and is set aside – Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.21 and 22.
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: Legislative intent of enactment – Discussed.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: Legislative intent of enactment – Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was enacted to specifically prevent sub-standard drugs and to maintain high standards of medical treatment. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940 was mainly intended to curtail the menace of adulteration of drugs and also of production, manufacture, distribution and sale of spurious and sub-standard drugs. On the other hand, the N.D.P.S Act is a special law enacted by the Parliament with an object to control and regulate the operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. While the Drugs and Cosmetics Act deals with drugs which are intended to be used for therapeutic or medicinal usage, on the other hand the N.D.P.S Act intends to curb and penalize the usage of drugs which are used for intoxication or for getting a stimulant effect. [Para 8][422-G-H; 423-A]
Chimanlal Jagjivandas Sheth v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 665 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 344 – relied on Inderjeet Singh v. State of Punjab 2014 (3) RCR (Crl) 953 – referred to
1.2 Section 8 of the 1985 Act, is the prohibitory clause whose violation would lead to penal consequence. 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. In the instant case, the accused-respondents were found in bulk possession of manufactured drugs without any valid authorization. [Paras 9, 10, 11][423-B, G-H; 924-B-C]
Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) 13 SCC
1 : [2014] 11 SCR 981 – relied on
2. 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 instant 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. The decision rendered by the High Court holding that the accusedrespondents must be tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 instead of the N.D.P.S Act, as they were found in possession of the “manufactured drugs”, does not hold good in law. Further, the accused-respondents had approached the High Court seeking suspension of sentence. However, in granting the said relief, the High Court erroneously made observations on the merits of the case while the appeals w ere still pending before it. [Paras 15, 16][425-F-H]
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.