SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 1679

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Mohapatra : K.T.Thomas
Hussain
Versus
State Of Kerala
Case No. : 780 of 1998
Date of Decision : 10/27/00
Advocates Appeared: Ahmad Altaf : Jad Bimal Roy : Nair K.M.K. : Nair Vipin

Possession of a psychotropic substance for personal medical use is lawful under Rule 66(2) of the NDPS Rules, provided the quantity does not exceed one hundred dosage units. Conviction under Section 21 requires the substance to strictly meet the statutory definition of a 'manufactured drug'.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 2(xi), Section 8 and Section 21 - Rule 66 - Possession of substances - Definition of "manufactured drug" - For a substance to be classified as a manufactured drug, it must either fall within the categories listed in Section 2(xi)(a) or be declared so by the Central Government via notification in the Official Gazette - In the absence of such notification or categorization, conviction under Section 21 is legally unsustainable. (Paras 5 and 6)

(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Rule 66(2) - Possession of psychotropic substances for personal medical use - The proviso to Sub-rule (2) explicitly permits an individual to possess a psychotropic substance for personal medical use, provided the quantity does not exceed one hundred dosage units at a time - Possession of a small quantity for medical purposes within this prescribed limit does not constitute an offence. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was found in possession of six ampoules of a substance and two syringes. The appellant did not dispute the recovery but contended that the substance was being used under medical advice and presented a prescription. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 21 of the Act, and the conviction and sentence were subsequently confirmed by the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the substance did not fit the definition of a "manufactured drug" under Section 2(xi) of the Act as no supporting notification was produced. However, the substance was identified as a psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule to the Act. Following Rule 66(2) of the Rules, the court noted that possession of up to one hundred dosage units for personal medical use is permitted. Since six ampoules did not exceed this limit, the possession was lawful.

Issues: Whether the substance recovered from the appellant qualified as a "manufactured drug" under the Act and whether the possession of six ampoules for personal medical use constituted a punishable offence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a conviction under Section 21, the substance must strictly satisfy the definition of a "manufactured drug". Additionally, under Rule 66(2), the possession of a psychotropic substance is not an offence if it is for personal medical use and remains within the statutory limit of one hundred dosage units.

Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court and Sessions Court quashed; appellant acquitted and directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • crime and sentencing
    • offences involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
      • possession of psychotropic substances (Para 3, 7, 8)
      • manufactured drugs (Para 4, 5, 6)
  • practice and procedure
    • appeals
      • criminal appeals (Para 1, 2, 13)
    • evidence
      • burden of proof (Para 6)
      • court witnesses (Para 3, 11)
  • drug control and regulation
    • narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985
      • definitions (Para 5)
      • rules and notifications (Para 7, 9)
      • exemptions for medical or scientific purposes (Para 8, 9, 10)

Table of Contents

1. Appeal against conviction for possession of a psychotropic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )

2. Appellant argued lawful possession for personal medical use; prosecution failed to prove substance was a manufactured drug. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 )

3. Substance was a psychotropic substance, not a manufactured drug; personal medical use up to 100 dosage units is permitted. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )

4. Possession of a psychotropic substance for personal medical use up to 100 dosage units is not an offence under the Act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )

5. Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence quashed, appellant acquitted and directed to be set at liberty. (Para 13 )

6. What constitutes a manufactured drug under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985?

A manufactured drug is defined under Section 2(xi) as coca derivatives, medicinal cannabis, opium derivatives, poppy straw concentrate, or substances notified by the Central Government. (Para 5 , 6 )

7. What is the permissible limit for possessing a psychotropic substance for personal medical use?

Under Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules, a person may possess up to one hundred dosage units of a psychotropic substance for personal medical use at a time. (Para 9 , 10 )

8. Can possession of a psychotropic substance exceeding the small quantity limit still be lawful?

Yes, if the possession is for personal medical use and does not exceed one hundred dosage units, it is lawful under Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )

JUDGMENT

K.T.THOMAS, J.

(1) THIS seems to be a very unfortunate case in which the appellant by his fatality, had languished in jail already for a long period of 5 years, when as a matter of law he should have been moving about as a free citizen. Appellant in this case was charged by the Sessions Court with an offence under Section 20(b)(i) read with Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/. He filed an appeal before the High Court and a learned Single Judge who heard the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed his appeal. He filed this appeal by special leave from jail.

(2) THE misfortune hovering around him continued to persist as the Counsel appointed as amicus curiae to argue for him did not turn up and we had to remove him as A.C. We appointed another Counsel (Mr. Bimal Roy Jad) as amicus curiae. On 11.8.1999 we heard him and the learned Counsel for the State in detail and reserved the judgment. Thereafter, we felt that the appeal should be reheard as certain new features have emerged while contemplating the factual position in this case. We, therefore, reposted the matter. Today we are assisted by Shri Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General, who argued for the State of Kerala, though Mr. Bimal Roy Jad has not turned up to argue for the appellant, nor did he made any representation.

(3) THE factual matrix as revealed in the judgment of the trial court and the High Court is this: On 25.6.1994, appellant was found in possession of 6 ampoules of "Buprenorphine tidigesic" each containing 2 ml. He was also found in possession of 2 syringes each of 5 ml. capacity. It is pertinent to point out that appellant, unusually, did not dispute that the aforesaid substance had been recovered from him. On the contrary, he said that he was regularly using it under medical advice. He examined a Doctor as D.W. 1 to say that a prescription was administered by him to the appellant for using the aforesaid substance as a medical formulation. The trial court after completing prosecution evidence and the defence evidence, has proceeded to examine the District Medical Officer as Court Witness No. 1 in order to ascertain whether the quantity of substance recovered from the appellant would fall within the limit of small quantity envisaged in Section 27 of the Act. Having found that the quantity recovered from the appellant has exceeded the limit of small quantity the trial court proceeded to consider whether the offence charged against him was made out.

(4) SECTION 20 deals with contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. As the article recovered from the appellant cannot fall within the ambit of either cannabis, plant or cannabis the court had slipped down to Section 21 which relates to contravention of the law in respect of "manufactured drugs and preparation". As the District Medical Officer opined that "Buprenorphine tidigesic" is a manufactured drug, the trial court proceeded on that premise and found him guilty under Section 21 of the Act and convicted him and sentenced him as aforesaid.

(5) "MANUFACTURED drug" is defined in Section 2(xi) of the Act, which reads thus: 2. (xi) "manufactured drug" means: (a) all coca derivatives, medicinal cannabis, opium derivatives and poppy straw concentrate; (b) any other narcotic substance or preparation which the Central Government may, having regard to the available information as to its nature or to a decision, if any, under any International Convention, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a manufactured drug, but does not include any narcotic substance or preparation which the Central Government may, having regard to the available information as to its nature or to a decision, if any, under any International Convention, by notification in the Official Gazette,









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top