1997 Supreme(Raj) 1013
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.G.Mukherji, J.
Rajendra Pd. Gupta and another - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cri. Misc. Bail Application No. 446 of 1997.
Decided On : 19-02-1997
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused supplied the controlled substance.
Headnote:
BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 2(VII A), 9A, 25A, 37(1)(B) - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCE (REGULATION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES) ORDER, 1993 - PARAGRAPH 5 - SUPPLY OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF BAIL - REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING THAT ACCUSED IS NOT GUILTY - NOT LIKELY TO COMMIT ANY OFFENCE WHILE ON BAIL - COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION TO BE FACED - BAIL GRANTED TO ONE ACCUSED AND REJECTED FOR THE OTHER.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, father and son, were accused of supplying Acetic Anhydride, a controlled substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to Kota Glass Works. The prosecution alleged that the applicants' company, Numex Chemical Products, supplied the controlled substance to Kota Glass Works, which used it to make Smack from Opium. The applicants denied supplying the controlled substance and claimed that Kota Glass Works might have procured it from another source.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to prove that the applicants had supplied the controlled substance to Kota Glass Works. The court also found that the applicant No.2, the son, was an examinee for the higher secondary examination and that there were reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of the offence and that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Issues: Whether the applicants had supplied the controlled substance to Kota Glass Works.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants had supplied the controlled substance to Kota Glass Works. The court also held that the applicant No.2 was entitled to bail as there were reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of the offence and that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant No.2 and rejected the bail application of the applicant No.1.
JUDGMENT
1. - Heard.
1. Accused applicant No.1 Rajendra Prasad Gupta happens to be the proprietor of one Numex Chemical Products in Patel Nagar, Hapur in Uttar Pradesh and applicant No.2 happens to be his son. The said Numex Chemical Products is alleged to be the supplier of certain chemicals to Kota Glass Works. It is further alleged by the prosecution that police on suspicion arrested one Chander and on the basis of his statements, arrested further Arvind Mittal and Ashok Mittal, who are said to be the proprietors of Kota Glass Works. The prosecution case further is that this Kota Glass Works secure Acetic Anhydrite by way of supply of chemicals from Numex Chemical Products. This Acetic Anhydrite is a controlled substance within the meaning of Section 2 (vii a) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), since the said chemical is used for making Smack from Opium. It is the specific case of the present applicants the father and the son, that they do not disown having supplied ordinary chemicals to Kota Glass Works but they have not supplied Acetic Anhydrite, the alleged controlled substance within the meaning of the Act and that the said Kota Glass Works might have procured the said chemical from some other source, be that as it may, there is some witness available that Kota Glass Works use to place orders from time to time with regard to different chemicals with Numex Chemical Products. The prosecution has indeed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that in fact the controlled substance which formed the subject matter of the criminal offence, was in fact supplied by the present applicants as owners of Numex Chemical Products. Be that as it may the investigation has culminated in a charge sheet against both the accused persons. So far as applicant No. 2 Vikas's complicity is concerned, it is found that he has accepted certain orders but then the question whether the order was for supply of Acetic Anhydrite, the so-called regulated substance, is not thereby clinched. I find that Numex Chemical Products has a licence for carrying out the business of manufacture and supply of chemicals but then there is nothing on record that the said licence also covers controlled substances within the meaning of the Act. The Central Government has the ultimate power having regard to the use of any controlled substance, to regulate and prohibit the production, manufacture, supply and distribution thereof and the trade and commerce therein. Mr. Agrawal submits that under the provisions of paragraph 5 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 1993, every person who sells a controlled substance to a buyer in a transaction of one hundred kilograms and above shall sell so only after the buyer establishes his identity by production of documents like industrial licence or any registration certificate under any law or any other similar document which establishes his identity and upon a declaration being made of the purpose for which the controlled substance is being purchased. The prosecution has to prove however what was the bulk of the materials so sold by the Numex Chemical Products and under what type of stipulation from Kota Glass Works. Be that as it may, police recovered 32 bottles bearing labels of Organic Solvent each weighing 500 ml. It suspected the bottles to contain Acetic Anhydrite instead of Organic Solvent, as was disclosed on the labels affixed to the bottles and on suspicion as regards commitment of offence under Section 9A read with Section 25A of the Act, submitted charge sheet against Arvind Mittal,' Ashok Mittal be proprietors of Kota Glass Works and the present applicants.
2. The investigation is however, complete. I find that in so far as applicant No.2 is concerned, he is an examinee for the higher secondary examination which is to commence on and from 27.2.1997. The punishment as provided under Section 25A of the Act is that the accused may b
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
