THE STATE OF PUNJAB vs. RAKESH KUMAR

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1512  OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 4762 OF 2018) STATE OF PUNJAB …APPELLANT VERSUS RAKESH KUMAR         …RESPONDENT WITH Criminal Appeal No. 1514  of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4816 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1515 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4817 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1517 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.4869 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1516 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4818 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1513  of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4796 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1518 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4881 of 2018) 1 Criminal Appeal No. 1521 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5032 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1530 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5897 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1520 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4968 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1526  of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5893 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1525 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5892 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1519 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4953 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1528  of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5895 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1523  of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5886 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1527  of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5894 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1524  of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5891 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1529  of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5896 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1522 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5877 of 2018) 2 Criminal Appeal No. 1533  of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7223 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1532 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7222 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1536 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7228 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1531 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7221 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No. 1534  of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7225 of 2018) And Criminal Appeal No. 1535  of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7227 of 2018) JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals are filed by the State having been aggrieved th   by the common judgment and order dated 29 January, 2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, allowing the applications   for   suspension   of   sentence,   preferred   by   the accused­respondents   herein   under   Section   389   Cr.P.C.   and 3 directing to release them on bail, while the Appeals are pending in the High Court.  3. In   order   to   appreciate   the   merits   of   theseappeals,   brief   facts which have emerged from the case of the prosecution need to be noted   at   the   outset.   In   all   these   appeals,   the   accused­ respondents were apprehended with“manufactured drugs” and convicted   by   the   Trial   Court   for   offences   committed   under Section   21   or   Section   22   of   the   Narcotic   Drugs   and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ). The alleged offences and conviction recorded by “ N.D.P.SAct” the Trial Court against the respondents are listed below:

4

5

6

7

4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and conviction by the respective Trial Courts, the accused­respondents approached the High Court through various appeals. The accused­respondents, during the pendency   of   the   appeals,   preferred   an   application   seeking suspension of sentence. Since a common question of law was involved in the above appeals, the High Court heard the matters 8 together   and   passed   a   common   order   dated   29.01.2018, allowing the applications for suspension of sentence preferred by   the   accused­respondents.   The   High   Court   observed   that manufactured   drugs,   be   it   containing   narcotic   drugs   or psychotropic substances, if manufactured by a manufacturer, must   be   tried,   if   violation   is   there,   under   the   Drugs   and Cosmetics Act and not under the NDPS Act, except those in loose form by way of powder, liquid etc.   Dissatisfied by the above   order   dated   29.01.2018,   the   State   has   preferred   the present appeals. The counsel on behalf of the appellant­State, while criticizing the 5. impugned order passed by the High Court, drew our attention to the relevant provisions of the N.D.P.S Act and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and submitted that, the N.D.P.S Act, itself does not bar the application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.   Further,   the   counsel   also   argued   that,   the   impugned judgment   is   in   gross   violation   of   the   decision   rendered   in Inderjeet Singh v. State of Punjab   2014 (3) RCR (Criminal) 953, by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The counsel also relied upon the decision rendered by 9 this Court in  Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande  (2014) 13 SCC 1, wherein it was clearly held that dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is permissible only if it is for   medical   or   scientific   purposes.   But   even   the   usage   for medical and scientific purposes is not restriction free, as it is subject to rules under the N.D.P.S Act. 6. On   the   contrary,   the   counsel   on   behalf   of   the   accused­ respondents has supported the reasoning of the High Court while stating that it is very farfetched to presume that, any person who is apprehended with bulk quantity of manufactured drug, without having a license for the same, has committed an offence which is liable to be prosecuted under the N.D.P.S Act. The counsel further submitted that, the High Court was correct to conclude that, it can be considered as a violation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Therefore, there   was   no   error   in   granting   the   relief   of   suspension   of sentence,   considering   that   the   appeals   are   not   going   to   be adjudicated in the near future. 7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.  8. At the outset  it  is   essential  to  note  the   objectives  of   the  two 10 legislations before us, i.e., the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the N.D.P.S Act. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was enacted   to   specifically   prevent   sub­standard   drugs   and   to maintain high standards of medical treatment. ( See Chimanlal Jagjivandas Sheth v. State of Maharashtra   AIR 1963 SC ) The Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940 was mainly intended 665 to   curtail   the   menace   of   adulteration   of   drugs   and   also   of production, manufacture, distribution and sale of spurious and sub­standard drugs. On the other hand, the N.D.P.S Act is a special law enacted by the Parliament with an object to control and   regulate   the   operations   relating   to   narcotic   drugs   and psychotropic substances. After analyzing the objectives of both the Acts,   we   can  safely   conclude   that   while   the   Drugs   and Cosmetics Act deals with drugs which are intended to be used for   therapeutic   or   medicinal   usage,   on   the   other   hand   the N.D.P.S Act intends to curb and penalize the usage of drugs which are usedfor intoxication or for getting a stimulant effect. At   this   juncture,   it   is   also   pertinent   to   note   the   relevant 9. provisions under the N.D.P.S Act. Section 8 of the 1985 Act, is the   prohibitory   clause   whose   violation   would   lead   to   penal 11 consequence: Section 8. Prohibition of certain operations. ­No person shall­ (a)   cultivate   any   coca   plant   or   gather   any portion of coca plant; or (b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or (c)   produce,   manufacture,   possess,   sell, purchase,   transport,   warehouse,   use, consume,   import   inter­State,   export   inter­ State, import into India, export from India or transship   any   narcotic   drug   or   psychotropic substance,  except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of  this  Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence,   permit   or   authorization   also   in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorization: Provided   that,   and   subject   to   the   other provisions of this Act and the rules made there under, the prohibition against the cultivation of   the   cannabis   plant   for   the   production   of ganja   or   the   production,   possession,   use, consumption,   purchase,   sale,   transport, warehousing,   import   inter­State   and   export inter State of ganja for any purpose other than medical and scientific purpose shall take effect only   from   the   date   which   the   Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. 10. Further, Section 21 provides for punishment for contraventions in 12 relation to manufactured drugs and preparations and Section 22 provides   for   punishment   for   contraventions   in   relation   to psychotropic substances. Both the above provisions provide for the imposition of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and the imposition of a fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may be extended to two lakh rupees, if the recovered substance amounts to commercial quantity. However, the   proviso   appended   thereto   empowers   the   Court,   with   a discretionary power to impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees for reasons to be recorded in the judgment. In the present case, the accused­respondents were found in bulk 11. possession   of   manufactured   drugs   without   any   valid authorization. The counsel on behalf of the appellant­State has extensively stressed that the actions of the accused­Respondents amounts to clear violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S Act as it clearly   prohibits   possession   of   narcotic   substances   except   for medicinal or scientific purposes. In furtherance of the same, the counsel on behalf of the appellant­State has put emphasis on the judgment rendered by this court in the case of   Union of India 13 vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) , wherein it was held that: “ In  other  words, DEALING IN narcotic 25.   drugs   and   psychotropic   substances   is permissible only when such DEALING is for medical   purposes   or   scientific   purposes. Further, the mere fact that the DEALING IN   narcotic   drugs   and   psychotropic substances is for a medical or scientific purpose does not by itself lift the embargo  Such a dealing created Under Section 8(c). must be in the manner and extent provided by the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders made thereunder. Sections 9 and 10 enable the   Central   and   the   State   Governments respectively   to   make   rules   permitting   and regulating   various   aspects   (contemplated under Section 8(c), of DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 26. The Act does not contemplate framing of rules for prohibiting the various activities of DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.   Such   prohibition   is   already contained   in   Section   8(c).   It   only contemplates of the framing of Rules for permitting and regulating any activity of DEALING   IN   narcotic   drugs   or psychotropic substances …” (emphasis supplied) 12. In the present appeals before us, the trial courts after analyzing the evidence placed before them, held the accused Respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt and convicted them for offences committed under Section 21 and Section 22 of the N.D.P.S Act. 14 13. The   counsels   for   the   accused­respondents   have   strongly supported the judgment of the High Court wherein it was held that, since the present matters deal with “manufactured drugs” the   present   respondents   should   be   tried   for   the   violation   of provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.  14. However, we are unable to agree on the conclusion reached by the High Court for reasons stated further. First, we note that Section 80 of the N.D.P.S Act, clearly lays down that application of the Drugs   and   Cosmetics   Act   is   not   barred,   and   provisions   of N.D.P.S.   Act   can   be   applicable   in   addition   to   that   of   the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The statute further clarifies   that   the   provisions   of   the   N.D.P.S   Act   are   not   in derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This Court in the case of  Union of India vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra), has held that, “35.   …essentially the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940   deals   with   various   operations   of manufacture,   sale,   purchase   etc.   of   drugs generally   whereas   Narcotic   Drugs   and Psychotropic   Substances   Act,   1985   deals with   a   more   specific   class   of   drugs   and, therefore,   a   special   law   on   the   subject. Further   the   provisions   of   the   Act  operate   in addition to the provisions of 1940 Act.” 15 (emphasis supplied) 15. The   aforesaid   decision   further   clarifies   that,   the   N.D.P.S   Act, should not be read in exclusion to Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.  Additionally, it is the prerogative of the State to prosecute the offender in accordance with law. In the present case, since the action  of   the   accused­Respondents   amounted   to  a   prima­facie violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S Act, they were charged under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S Act. 16. In light of above observations, we find that decision rendered by the High Court holding that the accused­respondents must be tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 instead of the N.D.P.S   Act,   as   they   were   found   in   possession   of   the “manufactured drugs”, does not hold good in law. Further, in the present case, the accused­respondents had approached the High Court seeking suspension of sentence. However, in granting the aforesaid relief, the High Court erroneously made observations on the merits of the case while the appeals were still pending before it.  17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and 16 the gravity of offence alleged against the accused­respondents, the order of the High Court directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is clearly unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. 18. Accordingly   the   impugned   order   passed   by   the   High   Court  is hereby set aside and the concerned authorities are directed to take the accused­respondents herein into custody forthwith. Lastly, the counsels for respondents in Appeals arising out of SLP 19. (Crl) No.4816/2018 and SLP (Crl) No.4817/2018 have specifically pleaded   that   the   respondents   have   already   undergone   a considerable period under incarceration. In light of the same, we request the High Court to expedite the hearings and dispose of the   appeals   accordingly.   It   is   needless   to   observe   that   the observations made during the course of this order are only for deciding these appeals.  20. The   appeals   stand   allowed   in   aforesaid   terms.   As   a   sequel pending applications, if any shall also stand disposed of. 17 ……………………………..J. ( N. V. Ramana ) ……………………………..J. ( Mohan M. Shantanagoudar )  ……………………………..J. (M.R. Shah) N EW  D ELHI , DECEMBER 03, 2018 18