Back
2001 Supreme(SC) 680
2001(5) Supreme 308
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik & U.C. Banerjee, JJ.
Thinley Bhutia -Appellant
versus
State of Sikkim -Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 511 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4087 of 2000)
Decided on 16-4-2001
IMPORTANT POINT
In the facts and circumstances of the present case the framing of charge u/s 22 of NDPS Act is uncalled for. The accused may be appropriately charged and tried in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Headnote:Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-Sections 22 and 27 (2)-Appellant found in possession of six tablets offending Narcotics and consuming 2 tablets of it-Charges framed under Section 22-Grievance that it should be under Section 27-Whether Apex Court can interfere on point of framing charge that possession of offending article was for self consumption and not for sale? (Yes, the accused must be appropriately charged).
Held : It is undoubtedly true that under Section 27(2) it is for the accused-appellant to establish that the article in question was intended for personal consumption and not for sale or distribution. But having regard to the assertions made and the materials elicited in course of investigation, as would appear from the chargesheet itself, we are persuaded to accept the submission of Mr. Nageswar Rao, appearing for the accused-appellant and as such we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the framing of charge under Section 22 of the NDPS Act is uncalled for. Be it stated that in view of the Notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Revenue), possession of six number of Nitrazepam would be held to be a possession in small quantity. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the order framing the charge under Section 22 and direct that the accused may be appropriately charged and tried in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Para 3)
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The accused-appellant has approached this Court against framing of charge under Section 22 of NDPS Act. Mr. Nageswar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that on the prosecution case itself the possession of six number of Nitrazepam and consumption of two other tablets by the appellant himself would indicate that if at all a charge could be framed under Section 27 of NDPS Act and not under Section 22 of the NDPS Act.
3. Mr. Mariarputhem, learned Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, contended that the burden being on the appellant under sub-section 2 of Section 27, at this stage when the Court has framed charge under Section 22, this Court need not interfere with the same, the possession of the offending article being admitted. It is undoubtedly true that under Section 27(2) it is for the accused-appellant to establish that the article in question was intended for personal consumption and not for sale or distribution. But having regard to the assertions made and the materials elicited in course of investigation, as would appear from the chargesheet itself, we are persuaded to accept the submission of Mr. Nageswar Rao, appearing for the accused-appellant and as such we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the framing of charge under Section 22 of the NDPS Act is uncalled for. Be it stated that in view of the Notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Revenue), possession of six number of Nitrazepam would be held to be a possession in small quantity. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the order framing the charge under Section 22 and direct that the accused may be appropriately charged and tried in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(N.K.R.) Order accordingly.
***************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Thinley Bhutia v. State of Sikkim, 2001(5) Supreme 308 : 2001 (3) Crimes 337
00021
