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

2003 Supreme(Cal) 240

High Court Of Calcutta
P. K. BISWAS
SUBHASH BAPARI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. R.  599  Of  2003
Decided On : 05/13/2003

Advocates Appeared:
KAZI SAFIULLA, M.SINGH, Minoti Gomes, RUPNA BHATTACHARJEE (RAY)

The statutory period of detention for an offence under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act is 60 days, as the imprisonment prescribed for the aforesaid offence is not less than 10 years.

Headnote:

BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTIONS 21(B), 36(A)(4) - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - SECTION 167(2) - Statutory period of detention - Accused charged under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act - Whether statutory period of detention is 60 days or 180 days - Held, statutory period of detention is 60 days.

Fact of the Case:

The accused was charged under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for allegedly possessing heroin. The accused filed a bail application on the ground that the statutory period of detention had expired, as per Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The trial court rejected the bail application, holding that the statutory period of detention was 180 days.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the statutory period of detention in the instant case was 60 days, and not 180 days. The court relied on the provisions of Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act and the corresponding period provided in Section 167(2) of the CrPC, as well as the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (NCT) of Delhi and the ratio laid down by the division bench of the High Court in the case of Jayanta Majhi and Ors. v. State.

Issues: 1. Whether the statutory period of detention for an offence under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act is 60 days or 180 days? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS (Amendment) Act, 2001 are applicable to the present case?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The statutory period of detention for an offence under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act is 60 days, as the imprisonment prescribed for the aforesaid offence is not less than 10 years. 2. The provisions of Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS (Amendment) Act, 2001 are not applicable to the present case, as the accused is not charged with an offence punishable under Section 19, 24, or 27A of the NDPS Act, or for offences involving commercial quantity.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revisional application and set aside the order of the trial court. The court held that the statutory period of detention for the accused was 60 days and that the accused was entitled to bail.

P. K. BISWAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of the accused petitioner subhash Bapari seeking for a clarification whether in the instant case the statutory period of detention would be 60 days under Section 167 (2) of Cr. P. C. or it should be 180 days as has been held by the learned Special Judge in his order dated 17. 2. 2003.

( 2 ) THE short facts leading to the filing of this application are as under: the present prosecution has been started upon the allegation that on 18. 12. 2002 at 16. 05 hrs, the Officer-in-Charge of Ashokenagar Police station on receipt of a telephonic information had been in front of the ashokenagar Railway Station along with available force at the back side of Rickshaw stand near Bahi Bhai Club. The present petitioner was detained there while he was found to be selling heroin.

( 3 ) TO work out the aforesaid information, the person of the petitioner was searched in presence of the circle inspector of police of Habra Circle and other available witnesses and force and after observing all necessary formalities. Upon aforesaid search, one cellophane paper packet containing snuff coloured sticky substance was recovered which was said to be heroin and 8 small newspaper packets containing snuff coloured sticky substance said to be heroin were also recovered and after proper weighment those came to be 19. 950 gms. , in total and a cash of Rs. 607- inside a white colour polythene carry bag which was carried by the petitioner in his right hand, was also recovered.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid articles were therefore, seized under a proper seizure list duly signed by the witnesses and on such application Ashokenagar p. S. case No. 226 dated 18. 12. 2002 under Section 21/27 of the Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the n. D. P. S. Act) was started.

( 5 ) IT has been alleged by the petitioner that the alleged contavention in the present case involves quantity lesser than the commercial quantity, but greater than the small quantity and, thus, this becomes punishable under section 21 (b) of the N. D. P. S. Act with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees as amended by Act 9 of 2001 and Item No. 56 of the Table published in the notification No. S. O. 1055 (E) dated 19. 10. 2001 published in the Gazette of india, Extra. , Pt II, Section 3 (II) dated 19. 10. 2001.

( 6 ) IT has further been alleged that this being the position of this case, after the expiry of the statutory period as specified in Paragraph (a) of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is 60 days, the petitioner filed one application praying for bail on the aforesaid ground on the expiry of the statutory period, but the learned Court has refused to entertain the bail application on the ground holding, inter alia, that the statutory period of detention would be 180 days which have not yet been elapsed.

( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has come up before this Court seeking for the clarification alleging that the learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order without due application of his judicial mind and alleging, inter alia, that the learned Special judge has failed to consider the provisions laid down under Section 36 (A) (4) of the N. D. P. S. (Amendment) Act, 2001 as the aforesaid provision has only been made applicable in respect of the persons accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or 24 or 27a or for offences involved in the commercial quantity. Accordingly, he has prayed for the aforesaid clarification.

( 8 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner drawing my attention to a decision reported in 2001 C Cr LR (SC) 374 in the case of rajeev Chaudhary v. State (N. C. T.) of Delhi and also placing his reliance on a decision




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top