The judgment establishes the strict provisions and penalties under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for possession of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, emphasizing the need for compliance with search and seizure procedures and the severity of punishment for such offenses.

BARIN GHOSH, C. J.—

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) is a special Act enacted to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. According to the Act, narcotic drugs are coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, poppy straw and include all manufactured goods, whereas psychotropic substances are those which have been specified in the Schedule. In terms of the Act, “cannabis (hemp)” means charas as well as ganja and also any mixture thereof. Section 8 of the Act prohibits, amongst others, possession by any person of any narcotic drug, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of the Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and, in case, where any such provision imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation, also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation, from the date of coming into force of the Act, i.e. with effect from 14th November, 1985. In terms of Section 10 of the Act, the State Government may permit possession of cannabis, excluding charas. At the same time, Section 9 of the Act does not authorise the Central Government to permit possession of charas, although under Section 9A of the Act, it may do so in public interest. That has not been done yet. Section 20 of the Act provides that whoever, in contravention of any provision of the Act, possesses cannabis of commercial quantity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine, which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but which may extend to two lakh rupees, provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. According to the Act, “commercial quantity” means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. By a notification, amongst others, 1 kg of cannabis (charas) has been declared by the Central Government as commercial quantity.

2. On 21st November, 2006, at 19:35 p.m., a First Information Report was lodged. The same was lodged on the basis of a seizure memo. It was alleged that, on 21st November, 2006 at 13:05 p.m., S.I. Girish Chandra Tamta, S.I. C.P. Singh, S.I. J.S. Gabrayal, Constable Jitender Singh, Constable Gulshan Negi, Constable Tejveer Singh, Constable Naveen Joshi left on Gypsy No. 04 C/3072, driven by Gajendra Dhyani, in search of wanted criminals. It was stated that when the police party reached in front of Railway Station, they saw two persons coming from inside the Railway Station carrying plastic bags in their hands. Seeing the vehicle of the search party, they started running inside the Railway Station. The search party chased them and caught them near the reservation center at about 15:30 p.m. One of them was the appellant herein. On questioning, the appellant is said to have disclosed that, in the plastic bag, he was carrying charas. The appellant was made to open the bag, where 13 packets were found, each weighing about 1 kg. Those were sniffed and it appeared to be charas. Sample of 100 grams was taken and the remaining 12 kg 900 grams was kept in the polythene packets and the bag containing the same. Those were sealed and the sample of the seal was prepared. A similar recovery was made from the other person Raju @ Bablu. Two separate crime cases were instituted and SI K.R. Sharma was handed over the investigation. It was stated that before the search was made, appellant was told that the same can be made before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer if he wish, when the appellant allowed the police party to search him in writing bearing his signature. At the time of seizure, appellant was taken in custody. Sample charas was sent to forensic labor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document