LexAMAR SINGH RAMJIBHAI BAROT versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A AMAR SINGH RAMJIBHAI BAROT v. ST A TE OF GUJARAT SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 B [H.K. SEMA AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: Section 29--Criminal conspiracy-Abetment of-Contraband substances C recovered from accused persons-They were found together but individually carried the substances recovered-High Court concluded that there was criminal conspiracy between them-Correctness of-Held: There was no evidence to suggest that there was any such abetment and/or criminal conspiracy-Hence, it was not possible for the High Court 10 take the view D that Section 29 was a/tracled E Sections 21, 2(xi) and (xvi)(e)-Applicability of-Conlraband substance recovered from accused was "opium derivalive" which was a "manufactured drug" under S. 2(xi)-Held: Such an offence fell wilhin S. 21 for illicit possession of "manufactured drug". Section 2/(c )-Applicability of-920 gms. of "opium derivative" recovered from accused-Whelher such a quantity was "small quantity" or "commercial quantity"-Held: In respecl of "opium derivatives" the Central Govt. Notification specified 5 gms. as "small quantity" and 250 gms. as "commercial quantity"-Hence, the offence fell under S. 21(c) and not under F S. 2J(a) or (b)-Notification S.O. 1055 (E) dt. 19.10.2001. Evidence Act, 1872: Section 45-Expert opinion-Forensic Science Laboratory (FSl) opined that the contraband substances recovered from accused was "opium "-Binding G nature of-Held: when no acceplable evidence that the substance found was coagulated juice of opium poppy-Opinion of FSl not binding on the Court. Words & Phrases: H 272 \ AMARSINGH RAMJIBHAI BAROTF. STA TE OF GUJARAT 2 73 "Manufactured drug"-Meaning of-In the context of S. 2(xi)(a) of the A Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Subs1ances Act, I 985. The appellant and the deceased-accused were found to be in possession of contraband substances weighing 920 gms. and 4.250 gms. respectively. Two sets of samples were drawn from the substances recovered and were forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) B which opined that the substances were "opium" as described in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS). The trial Court held that both the accused persons were guilty of individually and jointly possessing 920 gms. of opium and 4.250 gms. of C opium and convicted them under Sections 17 and 18 of the NDPS Act. However, the High Court held that the appellant was liable to be convicted under Section 21(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act for individually being in possession of 920 gms. and for being jointly, in conspiracy with the deceased-accused, in possession of 4.250 gms. of opium. Hence the appeal. D Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. There was no warrant for the conclusion of the High Court that there was a criminal conspiracy between the appellant and the deceased-accused. There is no evidence to suggest that there was any such E abetment and/or criminal conspiracy within the meaning of Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS). The appellant and the deceased-accused were found together, but individually carrying the recovered substances. Hence, it was not possible for the High Court to take the view that Section 29 was attracted. 1277-G-HI p 2. There does not appear to be any acceptable evidence that the black substance found with the appellant was "coagulated juice of the opium poppy" and any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy". The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) has given its opinion that it is 'opium as described in the NDPS Act'. G That is not binding on the court. [279-C-DJ 3.1. The evidence does not indicate that the substance recovered from the appellant would fall within the meaning of sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Section 2(xvi). The residuary clause (e) would take into its sweep all preparations containing more than 0.2 per cent of morphine. The FSL H 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A report proves that the substance recovered from the apj'Jellant had 2.8 per cent anhydride morphine. Consequently, it would amount to "opium derivative" within the meaning of Section 2(xvi)(e). (279-D-E-F] 3.2. All "opium derivatives" fall within the expression "manufactured drug" as defined in Section 2(xi) of the NDPS Act. Thus, the conclusion is B that what was ·recovered from
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.