Back
2012(3) JLJ 36
(SUPREME COURT)
T.S. Thakur and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Union of India v. Mohanlal
Criminal Appeal No.652 of 2012 : against the judgment and order of M.P. High Court Bench at Indore, passed in
Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2008; Decided on 3.7.2012.
Held : We find considerable merit in the submissions made by Mr. Sinha. The problem is both wide-spread and formidable. There is hardly any State in the country today which is not affected by the production, transportation, marketing and abuse of drugs in large quantities. There is in that scenario no gain saying that the complacency of the Government or the officers dealing with the problem and its magnitude is wholly misplaced.While fight against production, sale and transportation of the NDPS is an ongoing process, it is equally important to ensure that the quantities that are seized by the police and other agencies do not go back in circulation on account of neglect or apathy on the part of those handling the process of seizure, storage and destruction of such contrabands. There cannot be anything worse than the society suffering on account of the greed or negligence of those who are entrusted with the duty of protecting it against the menace that is capable of eating into its vitals. Studies show that a large section of the youth are already victims of drug abuse and are suffering its pernicious effects. Immediate steps are, therefore, necessary to prevent the situation from going out of hand.
The Chief Secretaries of the States shall ensure that a questionnaire on the above lines is served upon the Director General of Police of the State for a report and on receipt of the report forward the same to the Registrar General of the State High Court.
The Registrar General of the High Court in each State shall be the Nodal Officer and shall ensure collection of the reports from the Chief Secretary of the State concerned, scrutinise the same, get clarifications and further information wherever necessary and submit the report to this Court containing a summary of the information so collected, as early as possible but not later than three months from the date of a copy of this order being received by him. (2002)10 SCC 283 relied on.
Lokid vks"kf/k vkSj eu%izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 && /kkjk 8@18¼[k½ lgifBr /kkjk 29 rFkk 52d && lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 3 && vfHkx`ghr fofuf"k) oLrqvksa dks u"V djus ls lacaf/kr lk{; dk vHkko && bUgsa vfHkxzg.k dh izfØ;k djus okyksa dh mis{kk ;k mnklhurk ds dkj.k okil ifjpkyu esa ugha tkuk pkfg, && fLFkfr dks gkFk ls fudyus ls jksduk vko‘;d && rhu ekl ds Hkhrj vfHkxzg.k O;;u@u"V djus rFkk U;kf;d v/kh{k.k ds igyqvksa ij lHkh jkT;ksa ds lacaf/kr eq[; lfpo }kjk iqfyl iz/kkuksa ls lwpuk ,d= djus dk funs‘kA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ge Jh flUgk }kjk fd, x, fuosnuksa esa vR;ar lkj ikrs gSaA leL;k O;kid rFkk Hk;kud nksuksa gh gSA vkt ns‘k esa dnkfpr gh dksbZ jkT; gksxk tks O;kid ek=k esa vks"kf/k;ksa ds mRiknu] ifjogu] foi.ku rFkk nq:i;ksx ls izHkkfor u gksA bl n`‘; fo/kku esa] ;g dgus ls dksbZ ykHk ugha gS fd leL;k dks fuiVkus okyh ljdkj ;k vf/kdkfj;ksa dk larks"k rFkk mldh O;kidrk iw.kZr% foLfkkfir gSA tcfd Lokid vks"kf/k;ksa rFkk eu%izHkkoh inkFkksZa ds mRiknu] foØ; rFkk ifjogu ds fo:) yM+kbZ ,d pyus okyh izfØ;k gS] ;g lqfuf‘pr djuk leku :i ls egRoiw.kZ gS fd ek=k,a] tks iqfyl rFkk vU; vfHkdj.kksa }kjk vfHkx`ghr dh xbZ gS] bu fofuf"k)ksa ds vfHkxzg.k] HkaMkj.k rFkk u"V djus dh izfØ;k djus okyksa dh vksj ls mis{kk rFkk mnklhurk ds dkj.k okil ifjpkyu esa u tk,aA blls cnrj dqN ugha gks ldrk fd tks ml ladV ds fo:) tks lekt dh izk.kok;q u"V djus esa leFkZ gS] lekt dk laj{k.k djus ds drZO; ls U;Lr gSa muds yksHk rFkk mis{kk ds dkj.k gh lekt d"V Hkksx jgk gSA v/;;u n‘kkZrs gSa fd ;qokvksa dk cM+k oxZ igys&gh vks"kf/k ds nq:i;ksx dk ihfM+r gs rFkk blds ?kkrd izHkkoksa dks Hkksx jgk gSA blfy,] fLFkfr dks gkFk ls fudyus ls jksdus ds fy, rkRdkfyd mik; vko‘;d gSaA
jkT;ksa ds eq[; lfpo lqfuf‘pr djsaxs fd iwoksZDr :ijs[kkvksa ij jkT; ds iqfyl egkfuns‘kd dks fjiksVZ ds fy, iz‘ukoyh dh rkehy dh xbZ gS rFkk fjiksVZ dh izkfIr ij mls jkT; mPp U;k;ky; ds egkjftLVªkj dks dks vxzf"kr djsaxsA
izR;sd jkT; esa mPp U;k;ky; ds egkjftLVªkj uksMy vf/kdkjh gksaxs rFkk lacaf/kr jkT; ds eq[; lfpo ls fjiksVksZa dk ,d=hdj.k lqfuf‘pr djsaxs] mudh laoh{kk djsaxs] tgk¡ vko‘;d gks Li"Vhdj.k rFkk vfrfjDr lwpuk izkIr djsaxs rFkk ;Fkk ,df=r lwpuk ds lkjka‘k okyh fjiksVZ bl U;k;ky; esa ;FkklaHko ‘kh?kz izLrqr djsaxs ijarq ;g muds }kjk bl vkns‘k dh izfrfyfi izkIr djus ds fnukad ls rhu ekl ds i‘pkr~ u gksA ¼2002½10 ,l lh lh 283 voyafcrA
Thakur, J. -- 1. This appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2008 whereby the High Court has acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them under section 8/18(b) read with section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, primarily for the reason that no evidence regarding the destruction of the 3.36 kgs. of opium allegedly seized from the respondents had been provided by the prosecution. In the absence of any evidence to show that the seized contraband was destroyed as per the prevalent procedure, the contraband should have been, according to the High Court, produced before the trial Court. The failure of the prosecution to do so, therefore, implies a failure to prove the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the respondents.
2. When this appeal came up for hearing before us on 11th April, 2012, Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, argued that the High Court was in error in holding that the procedure prescribed for destruction of the contraband had not been followed and the destruction of the seized quantity had not been proved. In support of his submission he placed reliance upon Standing Order No.1/89 and Circular dated 22nd February, 2011 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, impressing upon the Chief Secretaries of the States and the Union Territories as also Heads of Police of the States to comply with the instructions and the procedure prescribed by the Standing Order. We had, upon consideration of the submission made by Mr. Chaudhary, passed an order on 11th April, 2012 in which we said :
“We have been taken through the contents of the Standing Order also which prescribes the procedure for search, disposal and destruction of the seized contraband. We are not, however, very sure whether the said procedure is being followed as it ought to be. The pilferage of the contraband and its return to the market place for circulation is, in our opinion, a major hazard against which the system must guard at all cost if necessary by making suitable changes wherever the same are called for. Before any exercise to that end is undertaken it is necessary to examine whether the procedure is being followed in letter and spirit. For that purpose in view we request Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae and identify if possible, by reference to the standing order and the available material, the weak links in the chain of the procedure of search, disposal or destruction of the narcotics and the remedial steps, if any, needed to plug the holes. To that extent we are inclined to enlarge the scope of this appeal for we are of the view that the hazardous nature of the substance seized in large quantities all over the country must not be let loose on the society because of human failure or failure of the system that is purported to have been put in place.”
3. Pursuant to the above we have heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel, who argued that the procedure prescribed for destruction of the contraband seized in different States has not been followed resulting in a very peculiar situation arising on account of such failure and accumulation of the seized drugs and narcotics in large quantities thereby increasing manifold the chances of pilferage for re-circulation in the market from the stores where such drugs are kept. In support of that submission Mr. Sinha placed reliance upon a press report published in the timesofindia.indiatimes.com dated 12th July, 2011, under the heading “Bathinda’s police stores bursting at seams with seized narcotics”. From a reading of the said report it appears that the inventory of the drugs seized by the police over the past many decades include drug seized as far as back as in the early eighties. Large quantities of seized dr
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
