JUDGMENT :

The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 04.06.2022, by which the revisionist has been remanded to judicial custody under Sections 8/21, 27A/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”).

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist would argue that even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety, it does not make out an offence under Section 27A of the Act, which deals with financing of any activity specified in sub-Clauses (i) to (v) of Clause (viiia) of Section 2, of the Act.

3. In the instant case, according to the FIR, on 03.06.2022, police upon information having been received, intercepted the revisionist, when he was staying in a hotel with co-accused Monu. The revisionist, according to the FIR, had visited Dehradun so as to sell Smack to the co-accused. It is argued that the sale of Smack is not an offence punishable under Section 27A of the Act. It may be an offence under Section 8 read with Section 21 of the Act.

4. Learned State counsel would submit that sale is the part of finance.

5. The Court put another question to learned State counsel, which is as follows:-

(i) Does it mean that every possession of narcotic drug