LexD. RAMAKRISHNAN versus INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2009] 11 S.C.R. 442 D. RAMAKRISHNAN V. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU (Criminal Appeal No. 1324 of 2009) JULY 27, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - s. 8 (c) rlw ss. 22, 23, 25, 27 A, 53, 53A and 58 - Prosecution C under - For unauthorised export of drugs - Conviction by courts below - Plea that conviction if at all could be under Drugs and Cosmetics Act and not under Narcotic Drugs Act - Held: Conviction under Narcotic Drugs Act was justified - The case does not fall within purview of Cosmetics Act - D Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Appellant-accused No. 2 alongwith accused No. 1 -1 was prosecuted and convicted by courts below uls. 8(c) rlw ss. 22, 23, 25, 27 A, 53, 53A and 58 of Narcotic Drugs E and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The allegation against the accused was that they unauthorisedly exported the drugs which find place at serial Nos. 30, 56 and 64 of the Schedule appended to the Act. In appeal to this court the plea of the appellant was F that his offence could come under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, but not under the Narcotic Drugs Act or the Rules framed thereunder. G H Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: Appellant and his co-accused are said to have got licenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. They had got general permission for import and export. Section 80 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 provides that the provisions of the 442 • D. RAMAKRISHNAN v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER 443 NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU Act or the rules made thereunder are in addition to, and A not in derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or the rules made thereunder. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 does not deal with exports. The provisions of Customs Act do. The licensees, therefore, were, thus, required to comply with the specific requirements of the B Act and the Rules. It is not denied or disputed that the appellant neither applied for nor was granted any authority to export by the Narcotic Commissioner or any other Officer who is authorized in this behalf. [Paras 10 and 11] [447-D-G] c State of Uttarnachal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta 2007 (1) sec 355, distinguished. Case Law Reference: 2001 (1) sec 355 Distinguished. Para 3 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1324 of 2009. D From the Judgment & Order dated 12.2.2009 of the High E Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Original Petition No. 28454 of 2008 in CC No. 100 of 2008. K.T.S. Tulsi, Vikas Pahwa and Rishi Malhotra for the Appellants . Mohan Jain, ASG, P.K. Dey, Shreekant N. Terdal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.~. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. One Seethapathy (Accused No.1 ), since absconding, President of Mis Chandra Importers Inc., New York (for the sake F G of brevity, hereinafter referred to as, "the Company"), was indulging in illegal internet pharmacy business. It has a branch H 444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. ) A at Coimbatore. Appellant herein (Accused No.2) was managing the activities of the said branch. A search was made in the office of the accused and various documents and computers were seized. It is alleged that the appellant used to mail consolidated requirements by means of packing slips in the B name of individual customers to the e-mail l.D. of the first accused. The first accused used to procure different drugs indicated by the appellant by the local pharmacy and pack separately as per packing slips and dispatch the same to the ; customers abroad through airmail and RMS post office at c Coimbatore. The drugs procured and exported are Alprazolam, Lorazepam, Nitrazepam, etc. Indisputably, these drugs find place at Serial Nos. 30, 56 and 64 respectively of the Schedule appended to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act") D 3. Inter alia, on the premise that for export of the said drugs no permission from the Competent Authority was obtained, the appellant and his co-accused was prosecuted under Section 8(c) read with Section 22, 23, 25, 27A, 53, 53A and 58 of the Act. E Primarily, relying on or on the basis of a decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta [(2007) 1 sec 355], it was urged that the appellant and his co-accused might have committed an offence under the Drugs and F Cosmetics Act, 1940 but n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.