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

2022 Supreme(Ori) 26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Dr. S. Muralidhar, A.K. Mohapatra, JJ.
State Of Odisha - Appellant
Versus
Registrar General, Orissa High Court, Cuttack - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 32580 of 2021
Decided On : 31-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, Additional Government Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. P. K. Muduli, Additional Government Advocate, for the Respondent.

The power vested in the 'Magistrate' under Section 52-A (2) to (4) of the NDPS Act cannot be interpreted to be exercised by the Special Court constituted under Section 36 of the NDPS Act.

Headnote:

Seizure - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances - NDPS Act 1985, Section 52-A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the implementation of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal (2016) 3 SCC 379. The court interpreted Section 52-A (2) to (4) and emphasized the duty of the Magistrate to allow applications for disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The court issued detailed directions to expedite the disposal of pending applications and emphasized strict compliance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal (supra).

Fact of the Case:

The State of Orissa sought directions for the seizure, sampling, safekeeping, and disposal of seized drugs, narcotics, and psychotropic substances in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Mohanlal (2016) 3 SCC 379. The State highlighted difficulties in implementing Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the power vested in the 'Magistrate' under Section 52-A (2) to (4) of the NDPS Act cannot be interpreted to be exercised by the Special Court constituted under Section 36 of the NDPS Act. The court issued detailed directions to expedite the disposal of pending applications and emphasized strict compliance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal (supra).

Issues: The issues included the interpretation of Section 52-A (2) to (4) of the NDPS Act and the challenges faced in implementing the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal (supra).

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power vested in the 'Magistrate' under Section 52-A (2) to (4) of the NDPS Act cannot be interpreted to be exercised by the Special Court constituted under Section 36 of the NDPS Act. The court issued detailed directions to expedite the disposal of pending applications and emphasized strict compliance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal (supra).

Final Decision: The court issued detailed directions to expedite the disposal of pending applications and emphasized strict compliance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal (supra). The High Court Committee was tasked with monitoring the implementation of the directions.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - Introduction 1. This petition by the State of Orissa through the Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force, CID CB seeks directions to the Registrar General of this Court for taking appropriate measures towards seizure, sampling, safe keeping and disposal of seized drugs, narcotics andpsychotropic substances in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohanlal (2016) 3 SCC 379, which was delivered on 28th January, 2016. In particular, it is pointed out that despite the insertion of Section 52-A in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) by the NDPS (Amendment) Act, 2014(Act 16 of 2014), not enough has been done for actual disposal of the seized drugs in the State of Orissa and that there is a huge inventory of such seized drugs in the Malkhanas of various police stations as well as in the Courts. Reference is also made to the Notification dated 16th January, 2015 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, regarding disposal of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances and conveyances immediately after their seizure. Clauses 4 and 9 of the said Notification set out the manner and mode of disposal of the drugs. These two have been interpreted by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Mohanlal (supra). The Court has formulated guidelines in this regard.

2. It is stated that pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the Home Department of the Government of Orissa formed Drugs Disposal Committees (DDCs) for every district by a Notification dated 29th December, 2016, which was later modified by a Notification dated 23rd May, 2017.

3. The grievance is that despite the concerned Investigating Officers (IOs) filing applications under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act before the Special Courts, orders are not being passed thereon except in a lonecase being the Balasore Special Case No.221 of 2020 before the learned Special Judge, Balasore. Annexure-3 to the petition gives a list of pending applications in the various districts, which are yet to be disposed of. As an illustration, the Petitioner has enclosed as Annexure-4 series to the petition, a copy of an application filed under Section 52-A (2) of the NDPS Act before the Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, which has been pending since 16th November, 2020. It is pointed out that subsequent certification by learned Magistrate is yet to be made in the case.

4. The Petitioner has highlighted a few difficulties faced in the implementation of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal (supra). Some of these issues read as under:

    'i. When certification of the drugs, required to be disposed of, is to be made by any Magistrate, no specified list of Magistrates, to carry out the work has been prepared till now;

    ii. In absence of any specified/notified Magistrates, the respective IOs are placing the inventories before the jurisdictional Special Courts, for certification under section 52A(2), finding no other alternatives;

    iii. The jurisdictional Special Courts have not been directed specifically to empower any of the Magistrates to carry out the job of certification as required under section 52A(2);

    iv. As the samples of drugs, drawn under sub-section-2 of section 52A and certified by the Magistrates, is to be treated as a primary evidence, by the learned Court, trying an offence under the Act, as stated in section 52A(4), the very process of certification might be considered as quite delicate and hence the learned Special Courts might be under a state of confusion in absence of any specified directions;'

5. The purpose of the present petition is to persuade this Court to exercise the power of superintendence over the Special Courts to achieve the purpose of the statute and ensure that the disposal of the drugs in terms of the guidelines issued in Mohanlal (supra) takes place within

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
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