AMIT TALUKDAR, J.

( 1 ) QUESTIONS that have fallen for consideration in these appeals have strictly been taken care of the statute itself. That is how those are to be disposed.

( 2 ) AT the Bar it has been submitted that as the amount of the HEROIN (Mat. Exts. I, II and III) falls within the category of small quantity the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court in respect of the charge of section 27a of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was not maintainable. Further it has been canvassed that the evidence on record does not fulfill the ingredient of the charge of section 27a of the said Act as there is no material either with regard to harbouring of any offender or financing any business in respect of narcotic drugs.

( 3 ) SHRI Pradeep Kumar Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appellants Utpal Deb and Paritosh Debnath (for short, A1 and A2 respectively) in C. R. A. No. 424 of 2002 further submitted that the provisions of section 52a of the said Act was also not complied with as no inventory were prepared and as the provisions of section 42 sub-clause (2) of the said Act also, stood in breach as there was previous information taken down in writing by p. W. I the same was not sent to the superior officer and the articles not being produced before the Court. Section 52,sub-section (2) of the said Act was also not complied with.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to Shri Roy, learned Senior Counsel since the recovery made from Al was 1. 0746 gm. while from A2 was 0. 3731 gm.- the quantity being falling within the definition of small quantity of the said Act they were liable to get the benefit of section 21 (a) of the said Act the conviction in respect of section 27a of the said Act was liable to be set aside.

( 5 ) SHRI Arup C. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the appellant Dilip Das (for short, A3) in C. R. A. No. 423 of 2002 adopted the submission of Shri Roy and submitted that from the possession of A3 only 0. 5636 gm. was recovered.

( 6 ) WE have had the very able assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State (appearing with Ms. Minoti Gomes and Amojit De ). In his usual clarity learned Public Prosecutor disputed the argument advanced by Shri Roy, learned senior Counsel with regard to the question that as the amount seized falls within the category of small quantity the charge in respect of section 27a of the said Act was not maintainable. He referred to section 37 (b) of the said Act and showed that the said provision made exceptions for those guilty for offences punishable under section 19 or section 24 or section 27a of the said Act and also for offences involving commercial quantity which, according to the learned public Prosecutor by necessary implication excluded the operation of small quantity.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to the learned Public Prosecutor section 27a of the said Act has its distinct character and even if the charge of section 27a of the said Act is proved then simply the amount falling within the definition of small quantity would act as a clear impediment in reducing the magnitude of the case and converting it to section 21 (a) of the said Act.

( 8 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor, however, submitted in his usual thoroughness that since Act 9 of 2001 amending the provisions of the said Act came into effect on and from 02. 10. 2001 and on the said date the trial and/or investigation was pending the benefit of section 41 of the Act 9 of 2001 was available to the appellants and the question of small quantity defined in the Act 9 of 2001 would be applicable. He showed the decision of Basheer vs. State of Kerala, 2004 Cr. LJ 1418, to illustrate his point.

( 9 ) AS in the prelude we have found that the statute itself is quite speaking in this fact scenario let us, advert to the same to better appreciate the submissions of Shri Pradeep Kumar Roy, learned Senior Counsel and Arup C. Chatterjee.

( 10 ) THE appellants were arrayed in N.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document