Back
2005 Supreme(All) 2373
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
K.S.Rakhra
MADAN PRASAD SRIVASTAVA ALIAS JITENDRA SINGH
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 07 December 2005
Criminal Misc. Case No. 3424 (B) of 2005
Dinesh Chandra Shukla,
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act and its influence on the court's decision to grant bail.
Headnote:
Commercial Quantity - Bail Application - The court considered the definition of commercial quantity under Section 2(vii)(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and ruled that the quantity of Charas recovered, being less than 1 kg, did not constitute a commercial quantity. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a second bail application, arguing that the quantity of Charas recovered was not a commercial quantity as per the NDPS Act. The applicant had been in jail for 11 months with no criminal antecedents reported.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the quantity of Charas recovered did not constitute a commercial quantity as defined by the NDPS Act. Considering the lack of public witness statements and the lower rank of the arresting officer, the court granted bail to the applicant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the quantity of Charas recovered constituted a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the definition of commercial quantity under Section 2(vii)(a) of the NDPS Act, as well as the lack of public witness statements and the rank of the arresting officer.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant on the grounds that the quantity of Charas recovered did not constitute a commercial quantity and considering the applicant's time spent in jail and lack of criminal antecedents.
This is second bail application. The first application was rejected on 23-6-2005.
2. The main ground which is being pressed is that the quantity of Charas alleged to have been recovered i. e. , 1 kg. was not commercial quantity and this Court while passing earlier order dated 23-6-2005 treated the said quantity to be commercial quantity. With regard to commercial quantity, there is special provision under Section 37 of NDPS Act.
3. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to Section 2 (vii) (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which defines commercial quantity as quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by the notification in the official gazette. Admittedly, in the official gazette, 1 kg. has been specified and, therefore, upto 1 kg. narcotic or psychotropic substances i. e. , Charas in the present case, cannot be treated as commercial quantity.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has further pointed out that the recovery was allegedly made at Railway Station in which no statement of public witness was recorded and that the investigation was done by the officer lower in rank than the office who effected arrest.
5. In view of this submission and also the fact that the applicant is in Jail since last 11 months and no criminal antecedents is reported against the applicant, let the applicant Madan Prasad Srivastava alias
Jitendra Singh be released on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 30,000/-each to the satisfaction of Court, concerned in Crime No. 8/05 under Section 8/21 NDPS Act P. S. G. R. P. Gonda District Gonda.
.
