HIRA SINGH AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1130 · Decided: 22-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
HIRA SINGH AND ANOTHER
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2017)
APRIL 22, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE
AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.21
– In case of seizure of mixture of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic
Substances with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of
neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and has to be taken into
consideration along with actual content by weight of the offending
drug, while determining the “small or commercial quantity” of the
Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances – The decision in the
case of E. Micheal Raj taking the contrary view is not a good law
– s.21 of the NDPS Act is not stand-alone provision and must be
construed along with other provisions in the statute including
Notification No.S.O.2942(E) dated 18.11.2009 and Notification S.O
1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 – Challenge to Notification dated
18.11.2009 adding “Note 4” to the Notification dated 19.10.2001
specifying small quantity and commercial quantity of NDPS
covered under the NDPS Act was clarificatory and by way of
abundant caution and the same is not ultra vires to the Scheme
and the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act – Drug trafficking.
Answering the reference, the Court
HELD: 1. In the case of E.Micheal Raj, while holding that
in the mixture of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance with
one or more neutral substance, the quantity of neutral substance
is not to be taken into consideration and it is only the actual
content by weight of the narcotic drug which is relevant for the
purposes of determining whether it would constitute “small
quantity or commercial quantity”, this Court has not at all
considered the relevant entry in the Notification dated
19.10.2001. What was seized was heroin which falls in Entry 56.
What was seized was not opium and/or opium derivative. There
is no specific finding even given by this Court that it would fall
   [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1130
1130
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1131
under Entry 239 namely any mixture or preparation that of with
or without the neutral material. Therefore, the case of mixture
of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance was not at all in
direct consideration of this Court. Even it does not appear that
this Court took into consideration Note 2 of the Notification
dated 19.10.2001. If note 2 would have been considered by this
Court and seized material was “Heroin” in that case and what
was seized was 4.5 kg heroin, the Court would have considered
the same as a “commercial quantity” as considering Entry 56,
5gms is “small quantity” and 250 gms and above is a
“commercial quantity”. The Statement of Objects and Reasons
concerning the Amendment Act, 2001 was also not properly
appreciated and/or considered and/or properly construed.
Considering the statement of objects and reasons concerning
the Amendment Act of 2001, by which, two tier punishment was
provided one for small quantity and another for commercial
quantity, it cannot be said that intention of the legislature was
to consider only the actual content by weight of offending drug
for the purpose of determining whether it would constitute small
quantity or commercial quantity. [Paras 6.3, 6.4, 7] [1154-E-H;
1155-A-D]
2. As per the preamble of NDPS Act, 1985, it is an Act to
consolidate and amend the law relating to Narcotic Drugs, to
make stringent provisions for the control andregulation of
operation relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances and to provide for forfeiture of the property derived
from or use in illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substance. The Statement of objects and reasons and the
preamble of the NDPS Act imply that the Act is required to act
as a deterrent and the provisions must be stringent enough to
ensure that the same act as deterrents and it was never the
intention of the legislature to exclude the quantity of neutral
substance and to consider only the actual content by weight of
offending drug which is relevant for determining whether it would
constitute small quantity or commercial quantity. Right from sub-
clause (viia) and (xxiiia) of Section 2 of NDPS Act, emphasis is
on Narcotic and Drug or Psychotropic Substance (Sections 21,
22, 23, 24, 27 and 43). Even in the table attached to Notification
dated 19.10.2001, column no. 2 is with respect to name of
HIRA SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.