1. Possession of opium without permit or licence — Conviction under Section 18, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 450
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : M.B.Shah
Thandi Ram
Versus
State Of Haryana
Case No. : 1555 of 1995
Date of Decision : 4/7/99
Advocates Appeared: Indeever Goodwill : Malhotra Prem : Sharma Rajesh Kumar
Non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 55 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, vitiates the conviction and renders it bad in law.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 18, 50, 52, 55 and 57 - Possession of opium - Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements - Conviction based on recovery of 250 grms. of opium - High Court held that non-compliance with Section 55 did not cause prejudice and Section 50 was not applicable due to accidental recovery - Supreme Court held that non-compliance with Sections 55 and 57 renders the conviction bad in law.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for possession of 250 grms. of opium without a permit or licence and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction, ruling that Section 50 was not applicable as the recovery was accidental and that non-compliance with Section 55 did not vitiate the conviction as no prejudice was caused.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 55 and 57 of the Act, as recorded in the judgment of the High Court, makes the conviction unsustainable in law.
Issues: Whether the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 50, 52, 55, and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, vitiates the conviction of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with the procedural requirements under Sections 55 and 57 of the Act is mandatory; failure to adhere to these provisions renders the conviction bad in law, regardless of whether prejudice was caused.
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Non-compliance with Sections 50, 52, 55, and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sustainability of conviction despite such non-compliance. (Para 1 )
3. Non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 55 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 renders the conviction bad in law. (Para 1 )
4. Conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is unsustainable if mandatory statutory requirements under Sections 55 and 57 are not complied with. (Para 1 )
5. Impugned judgments set aside — Appellant acquitted of charges — Bail bond discharged. (Para 1 )
6. Does non-compliance with Sections 55 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 vitiate a conviction?
Yes, the court held that if the provisions of Sections 55 and 57 of the Act have not been complied with, the conviction is bad in law. (Para 1 )
7. Is the procedure under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 mandatory in cases of accidental recovery?
The court noted the High Court's view that when an officer accidentally recovers the article in question, the requirement to follow Section 50 does not arise. (Para 1 )
(1) THE appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for having found to be in possession of 250 grms. opium without any permit or licence and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years. On appeal, the High court confirmed the conviction and sentence and hence the present appeal. Before the High court it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the provisions of S. 50, 52, 55 and 57 of the Act had not been complied with. The High court considered these provisions but was of the opinion that the concerned officer having accidentally recovered the article in question, question of following section 50 did not arise. So far as the noncompliance of the other provisions are concerned, the High court was of the view that even though the provisions of Section 55 may be mandatory but no prejudice having been caused the conviction does not get vitiated. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the decision of this court in the case of State of Punjab .v Balbir Singh JT 1994 (2 SC 108 as well as three Judge bench decision in the case of Mohinder Kumar .v State, Panaji, Goa AIR 1995 SC 1157 the conclusion of the High court is not sustainable in law and the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.We find sufficient force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the pronouncement of this court in the aforesaid cases and in view of the finding as recorded in the judgment of the High court that provisions of S. 55 and 57 have not been complied with the conviction is bad in law. The appellant has already undergone sentence for 9 years. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment of the High court and that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hissar and acquit the appellant of the charges levelled against him. The appeal is accordingly, allowed. The bail bond stands discharged.
