TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (1) TMI 854
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of DRI conducted a raid at the Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad on 4.12.2011. Two courier consignments ready for being exported through courier shipping bill of Anshanu Exports ( a courier company) were examined. The first consignment was destined for USA; the contents of the cargo did not tally with the description of the courier shipping bill. The consignor was found to be fictitious and the contents of the consignment is alleged to be 6 kgs. Ketamine Hydrochloride. The second consignment was destined to UK, which contained the contents of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride of 37 kgs. where also description of the courier and all contents of cargo did not match and the consignor was found to be fictitious. One Manibhai Sharma @ Bakabhai is alleged to have been dealing with the consignment and the documents. The officers of DRI also learnt that he is the manager of M/s. Anshanu Exports. His statement was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act wherein he stated that he was acting as per the instruction of the present applicant. The premise of manufacturer shown on one of the consignments namely M/s. Kumud Drug Pvt. Ltd., Sangli was raided recovering 432 kgs of Methamphetamine Hydrochlo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 It is further contended that reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court and of Bombay High Court on the ground that these substances are not mentioned in Schedule I of NDPS Rules, 1985. Such decisions in the case of applicant would not be applicable. It is further contended that in the matter before the Apex Court, the drugs seized were from the clinic of the applicant, as the applicant there was a doctor having valid licence. Moreover, the Apex Court had no occasion to deal with the applicability of Rule 57 as well as Rule 53A of the Rules, which would have an applicability in the instant case. As far as the decision of the Bombay High Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.1845 of 2010 is concerned, it is contended by the other side that the substances seized may not be mentioned in Schedule I of NDPS Rules, 1985. However, with nothing to indicate with regard to adjudication or interpretation of Rules 53A, 57 and 66, this authority should not be applicable to the case of the present applicant. 4.2 It is further the say of the respondents that in SLP(Criminal) No.9035 of 2011 pending before the Apex Court, no final order has been passed and the same is still pending. Fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from justice and the punishment the offence may entail, the circumstances peculiar to the accused and the larger interest of the public etc., while considering such application for bail. As the powers are given to both the Courts, it is a discretion of the litigant to invoke jurisdiction of either of them. If the applicant chooses not to prefer any application under Section 439 before the Sessions Court that itself cannot be the ground for this Court to dismiss his application or direct him to approach this Court only after having exhausted the remedy before the Sessions Court. 7. This brings this Court to the another vital aspect on merit. As mentioned earlier, application of this applicant for grant of bail on account of alleged default made by the Investigating Agency in laying the chargesheet has been rejected when he preferred default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, while upholding the order of the learned Sessions Judge, this Court had not touched the merits of the case. It is for the first time that the matter is being pursued on merits. Therefore, it will not be possible to treat the this as a successive bail in stricto senso and uphol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n or by smoking. 12(iii) Methamphetamine is a very addictive stimulant drug. It can be smoked, injected, inhaled or taken orally. It has many street names such as speed, meth and chalk. Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, the crystal form inhaled or by smoking is referred to as ice, crystal, glass and tina. 12(iv) Taking even a small amount of Methamphetamine can result in many of the same physical effects as those of other stimulants, such as cocaine and amphetamine. 12(v) Methamphetamine increases the release and blocks the brain chemical (a neurotransmitter) dopamine, leaving high levels of chemicals in brain, a common mechanism of action for most drugs of abuse. 12(vi) Methamphetamine affects the brain and creats feelings of pleasure, increases energy and elevates mood. Abuser may be addicted quickly, needing high doses more often. Adverse health affects with irregular heartbeat and increased blood pressure and variety of phychological problems. Long term abuse affect several mental disorder, memory loss and severe dental problems. 12(vii) Transmission of HIV and Hepatitis B & C can be consequences of Methamphetamine abuse. 13. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or with both; (b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakhs rupees but which may extend to two lacs rupees: PROVIDED THAT the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lacs rupees." 16. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 9 read with Section 76 of the NDPS Act, has made Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 ( "Rules" for short). 16.1 Chapter VI of NDPS Rules talks about import, export and transhipment of narcotic drug substances. Unless there is valid authorization issued by the Government, no consignment of any narcotic drug and psychotropic substance can be exported, of course, subject to provisions of Section 79 and Rule 53. 16.2 Rule 53 speaks of general pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considering the request of Union of India for cancellation of bail of the accused granted by the Special Court. In these matters, the officers of NCB had raided flat of the accused. They found 7 kgs of Methamphetamine and 5 kgs of Ephedrine. These contraband articles were seized and sealed under Panchnama. The accused were arrested and they were taken into custody in connection with the seizure. The statements were recorded and it was revealed that accused Xie Jing Feng dealt with export of contraband drugs and other accused, who were his employees, assisted him. The Court noted that Methamphetamine is a psychotropic substance while Ephedrine is a controlled substance. Accused were alleged to have committed offence under Section 22 and 25A of the NDPS Act. Special Judge relying on the judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3295 of 2005 , (M.V. Henry vs. Raviprakash Goyal) and Pradeep Dhond vs. NCB, Mumbai held that the provisions of NDPS Act were not prima facie applicable and therefore embargo under Section 37 of NDPS Act would not come into play. Such grant of bail, therefore, came to be challenged on the ground that Methamp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for anything in contravention to that. The schedule of the psychotropic substances under the Act is part of the act and no rule can be framed or can be interpreted in the manner which would be in contravention of the said schedule or the contravention of Section 8 or Section 22. 13. Chapter 5 of the Rules deals with the rules and grant of licence for the manufacture of drugs. Chapter 6 of the Rules deals with import, export, transhipment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Rule 53 puts a general prohibition on the import into and export out of India on the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I subject to other provisions of that chapter. Chapter 7 deals with psychotropic substances and Rule 64 provides that no person shall manufacture, possess, transport, import interState, export interState, sell, purchase, consume or use any of the psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I. Thus, it will be clear that while Rule 53 prohibits import in and export out of India of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I. Rule 64 prohibits interState import or export, sell, possession, etc. of psychotropic substances specif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted out of India, except under an import certificate or export authorisation issued under different provisions of that chapter. Under Rule 64, no person shall manufacture, transport, possess, import interState, export interState, sell, purchase, consume, use any of the psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I. As per Rule 65, the manufacture of psychotropic substances other than those mentioned in Schedule I shall be in accordance with the conditions of the licence granted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The psychotropic substances in Schedule III should be manufactured under licence issued by the authority in charge of the drug control in the State. Rules 66(1) specifically provides that no person shall possess any psychotropic substance for any of the purposes covered by the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 unless he is lawfully authorised to possess such substance for any of the purposes under the Rules. Thereafter, Rules 66(2) provides for possession and use of psychotropic substances by research institutions, hospitals, dispensaries, etc. It also provides for possession by an individual for his personal medical use subject to prescription by the registered Med....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the facts and the legal position, granted bail following the judgment in Ravi Prakash Goel and Pradeep Dhond (supra), without looking to the difference in the facts of the cases. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I hold that the trial court committed serious error in granting bail to the accused persons and therefore, in the larger interest of justice, it is necessary to set aside the said order of bail." 18. The Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1845 of 2010 arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.4135 of 2010, lifted the stay granted by the Bombay High Court against the order of the Special Judge granting bail to the appellant before it. The Court noted thus:" Leave granted. On June 08, 2009, the appellant was found in possession of 25 kilo grams of Methamphetamine. He was arrested and made accused in a case instituted under Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( for short, the 'Act'). It is undeniable that the aforesaid drug Methamphetamine, though included in the Schedule to the Act does not find mention in Schedule I to the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant was granted bail in this case by order dated March 03, 2010 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Mumbai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court to stay the bail order passed by the Special Judge for the reason assigned in its order and to leave the matter indefinitely in the limbo. We, accordingly, lift the stay granted by the High Court against the order of the Special Judge granting bail to the appellant. In the result the appeal is allowed." 19. It would be worthwhile noticing two conflicting judgments of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira reported in (2004) 3 SCC 549 and in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta reported in (2007)1 SCC 355. In the case of Collector of Customs, New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira (supra) the accused were found carrying larger quantity of Diazepam of 5 mg. tablets. The Apex Court was of the opinion that the seized article since was psychotropic substance and twin conditions for grant of bail were not satisfied, it cancelled the bail of the accused by holding thus: 6. As observed by this Court in Union of India v. Thamisharasi and Ors. (JT 1995 (4) SC 253) clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 37 impose limitations on granting of bail in addition to those provided under the Code. The two li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the accused does not surrender to custody, as directed, to pass appropriate orders so far as the surety and the amount of security are concerned. It is made clear that no final opinion on the merit of the case has been expressed in this judgment, and whatever has been stated is the background of Section 37 of the Act for the purpose of bail." 20. Whereas in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra), the respondent was an Ayurvedacharya operating from two clinics of his. He though advertised that his medicines were prepared from herbal plants collected from the banks of river Ganges, he was alleged to have possessed medicine containing psychotropic substance and, thereby he was charged of addicting patients with such drugs. He was arrested and charges were framed against him under Section 8(2) of the NDPS Act. In his application for bail, the Court allowed his application by holding that Section 37 would have no prima facie application in view of the exception contained in Section 8 and that the provision of Section 37 must be construed in a pragmatic manner. Rules 53 and 65 are held to be containing genus and other provisions following the same under chapt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame under the said Chapter are species thereof. This we say in view of the fact that whereas Rule 64 provides for psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I, Rule 65 prohibits manufacture of psychotropic substances, whereas Rule 66 prohibits possession, etc. of psychotropic substances and Rule 67 prohibits transport thereof. Rule 67A provides for special provisions for medical and scientific purposes. 20. The general prohibitions contained in both Rules 53 and 64, therefore, refer only to the drugs and psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that whereas the Schedule appended to the 1985 Act contains the names of a large number of psychotropic substances, Schedule I of the Rules prescribes only 35 drugs and psychotropic substances. 21. The respondent admittedly possesses in Ayurveda Shastri degree. It is stated that by reason of a notification issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 24.2.2003, the practitioners of ayurvedic system of medicines are authorised to prescribe allopathic medicines also. The respondent runs a clinic commonly known as "Neeraj Clinic". He is said to be assisted by either other medical practitioners be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of Rule 67A does not appear to have been alleged against the respondent. It was, however, stated at the Bar that the respondent has complied with the said provisions and, in fact, along with his bail application requisite documents have been furnished. Rule 67A expressly permits use of certain drugs for limited medical requirements of a foreigner. It, however, appears that the sentence contained in clause (b) of Rule 67A is not complete. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 36. In the instant case, we are of the opinion that Section 37 of the 1985 Act would prima facie have no application in view of the exception contained in Section 8 thereof read with the Rules. 37. The views which we have taken appear also to have been taken by the High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Gupta v. State as also the Bombay High Court in Pradeep Dhond v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic & Control Bureau. 38. The respondent is charged with a grave offence. It was, therefore, all the more necessary to apply the principles of law strictly. A person cannot be denied the right of being released on bail unless a clear case of application of the 1985 Act is made out. He might have committed an offence which repulses our ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a bare perusal of this Rule can carry on the activities mentioned therein pertaining to the psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I. This Schedule I is schedule to the Rules. Admittedly, this schedule does not include or mention the psychotropic substance in question. 32. The issue, therefore, that falls for consideration is whether merely because the psychotropic substance included in the Schedule to N.D.P.S. Act is not mentioned or included in Schedule I to the Rules, then, prohibition contained in section 8(c) is attracted and the exception thereunder becomes inapplicable? 33. It is contended before me that for the purpose of definition of the term" Psychotropic Substance", "The Schedule" to the Act has been framed. That is for the purpose of understanding the definition and only those substances which are mentioned and included in The Schedule to the Act would be Psychotropic Substance in the Act. Therefore, for the purpose of applicability of the Act to the Psychotropic substance in the question, the schedule is relevant. However, as to whether any opearation pertaining to this Psychotropic Substance is prohibited or not, the provision in that behalf is Section 8. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39 (pg. 142), the Supreme Court had already held that :" If it was "psychotropic substance" possession of the same would amount to an offence only if it was in contravention of section 8 of the Act. That section shows that no person shall possess any psychotropic substance except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the Rules or orders made thereunder" Therefore, an examination of Section 8 of the NDPS Act and the provisions of Chapter VII of the NDPS Rules is called for. Section 8:.... Section 8(c) which is relevant for our purpose as it deals with psychotropic substances, prohibits the manufacture, possession, sale use etc. of any psychotropic substance " except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent" provided by the provisions of the NDPS Act or NDPS Rules or orders made thereunder. This means that while there is a general prohibition against the manufacture, possession, sale, use etc. of an psychotropic substance, if the same is a medicine and is to be used for a medical purpose then the manner and extent of its manufacture, possession, sale use shall be as provided ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal and Pemoline which, though specified in the Schedule to the NDPS Act, do not find mention in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules. Clearly, by conscious design, all psychotropic substances mentioned in the schedule to the NDPS Act have not been listed in Schedule I to the Rules. The prohibition contained in Rule 64 of the NDPS Rules applies only to those psychotropic substances which are specified in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules. In other words, the prohibition of Rule 64 of the NDPS Rules is not applicable to those psychotropic substances, which, although they are listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act, are not part of the listed psychotropic substances in Schedule to the NDPS Act, are not part of the listed psychotropic substances in schedule of the NDPS Rules. It may be mentioned here that the Supreme Court, in the aforementioned decisions, was not called upon to examine this aspect of the matter, namely, whether Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules applied to all psychotropic substances or only those specified in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules. It is,therefore, open to this Court to consider and decide this aspect of the matter. Rule 65(1), inter alia, provides that the manufacture of any psych....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an no penalty can be imposed for violation of N.D.P.S.Act. Area and field covered by these two enactments, according to them, is not identical. Therefore, the judgement of the Delhi High Court proceeds on an erroneous basis that whenever Psychotropic substances or drugs are manufactured, sold, exported, used, possessed and consumed for medical and scientific purpose, then all that can be done is to proceed against persons involved therein for breach or violation of the D & C Act alone and they cannot be proceeded or tried for breach or contravention of N.D.P.S. Act. 36. It is true that N.D.P.S. Act and D & C Act operate in separate area and field and breach of one or violation or contravention of one does not mean breach or contravention or violation of the other and in a given case, both can be breached and violated and for such violation, penalties can be imposed under both. However, it is equally well settled that whenever, a person is accused of commission of any offence that offence must be specifically provided as also the punishment. The act or ommission which is made an offence punishable by law must be specifically and clearly set out and provided. It is not the case of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... carved out therein would not then apply to the operation which is covered by the exception. It is well settled that the function of exception and proviso in Legislative drafting is to exclude something from the purview of the main section or to elaborately explain it. The exception which is part and parcel of section 8(c) must be given the effect as intended by the Legislature. 38. So given, as far as Psychotropic substances in the present case are concerned, operations pertaining to them are permitted because Schedule I to the Rules do not include them at all. That these substances are included in the schedule to the Act is not of any relevance because one has to see everything viz., the Act, the Rules and order made thereunder together and in a harmonious manner. It is well settled that the Psychotropic substance is included in the Schedule to the Act but it is not included in the Schedule I to the Rules, then operations covered by section 8 cannot be said to be contravening provisions of the Act and, therefore, punishable. That is how, these provisions have been interpreted by Delhi High Court and earlier by Punjab and Haryana High Court. Their views have my respectful concurre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such import by way of issance of special import licence. The shipment of the consignment so allowed shall be accompanied by a copy of such special import licence duly endorsed by the Narcotics Commissioner." 25.1 It does not permit export of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or any preparation specified in ScheduleII to the countries or to the region of such country specified therein except with the authorization of the Narcotics Commissioner, who can permit specified quantities on the basis of Special Import Licence issued by the competent authority of the country mentioned in ScheduleII. 25.2 It is a fact that none of the above referred authorities even referred to Rule 53A of 1985 Rules. The decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Uttranchal vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra), of course, has referred to both Rules 53 and 64 as genus and rest of the rules as species. Yet when it is found that this provision which is introduced in the year 1993 and which clearly prohibits any export of psychotropic substances or narcotic drugs or any preparation also containing such drug or substance specified in ScheduleII to the country or to the regions of such count....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er nor is he having any manufacturing unit nor is he, in any manner, connected with any medicinal preparations. It is also alleged in the complaint itself that surreptitiously and unauthorizedly huge quantity of this psychotropic substances were to be exported. 30. This Court is also made aware of the fact that the psychotropic substances attempted to be exported unauthorizedly would fetch in the international market, huge sum running into crores of rupees ( ₹ 436 approximately). As noted in paragraph 12 of this order, Metamphatamine Hydrochloride is a very addictive stimulant drug and is structured similarly to "Amphatamine". 31. Section 2(xxiii) explains psychotropic substances as follows:" "psychotropic substance" means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material included in the list of psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule;" Undoubtedly, these three drugs find place in the schedule to the Act, but, not in Schedule I appended to the Rules. 32. Rules 53 and 64 contain general prohibitions in respect of import into and export out of India of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance....