LexHIRA SINGH & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017) 7 S.C.R. 271
HIRA SINGH & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2017)
JULY03,2017
(DIPAK MISRA AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.)
A
B
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -
Notifications issue{ by Central Government bearing no.S.0.2941(£)
dated 18.11.2009 amending Notification no.S.0.1055(E) dated
C
19.10.2001 thereby inserting Note 4 in the table at the end of Note
3 - Notification assailed on the ground that the NDPS Act does not
confer any power upon the Central Government to vary the
parameters of the quantification of the drugs; that the offence
defined in the Act is specific to narcotic drugs or the psychotropic
substances; that no punishment is provided for or can be given in
D
respect of non narcotic drugs or non psychotropic substances; and
further note 4 pertains to entry no.239 dealing with the non-descript
mixture or preparation with or without a natural material of specified
drugs referred to in entries 1 to 238 of the notification specifying
small quantity and commercial quantity and the effect of notificatiOn
E
is to undermine the decision in case of *E. Micheal Raj -
Held: The
decision in *E. Micheal Raj nowhere makes reference to Note 2 of
notification dated 19.10.2001 and that the same may have some
bearing on the issue under consideration - This decision also does
not refer to entry no. 239 and the interplay between the various
provisions alluded to earlier while noting the argument of the . F
respondents - The judgment, however, after quoting notification
dated 19.10.2001 took note of the purpose for which Amendment
Act of 2001 was brought into force and then proceeded to hold that
to achieve the said purpose of rationalisation of the sentence
structure, the purity of the narcotic drug from the recovery or seizure
G
made from the offender would be a decisive factor - Considering
the significance of the issues raised by the respondents and the
grounds of challenge of the appellants/petitioners concerning the
impugned notification, to observe judicial rectitude and in deference
to the decisions, matter is referred to larger bench.
271
H
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 7 S.C.R.
A
Referring the matters to a larger Bench, the Court
HELD: Considering the significance of the issues raised
by the respondents and the grounds of challenge of the appellants/
petitioners concerning the impugned notification, to observe
judicial rectitude and in deference to the decisions, the direction
B is passed to place these matters before atleast a three Judges
Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the matters in issue.
The three Judges Bench may have to consider, amongst others,
the following questions: (a) Whether the decision of this Court in
E. Micheal Raj case requires reconsideration having omitted to
take note of entry no.239 and Note 2 (two) of the notification
C dated 19.10.2001 as also the interplay of the other provisions of
the Act with Section 21? (b) Does the impugned notification issued
by the Central Government entail in redefining the parameters
•for constituting an offence and more particularly for awarding
punishment? (c) Does the Act permit the Central Government
D to resort to such dispensation? (d) Does the Act envisage that
the mixture of narcotic drug and seized material/substance should
be considered as a preparation in totality or on the basis of the
actual drug content of the specified narcotic drug? (e) Whether
Section 21 of the Act is a stand alone .provision or intrinsically
linked to the other provisions dealing with "manufactured drug"
E and "preparation" containing any manufactured drug? [Paras 11,
F
G
H
12) [280-A-F)
*E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control
Bureau (2008) 5 SCC 161 : [20081 4 SCR 644;
Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan (1994)
3 SCC 440 : [1994) 1 SCR 445; Harjit Singh v. State
of Punjab (2011) 4 SCC 441 : [20111 5 SCR 691;
Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana (2013) 6 SCC 595 :
[2013) 3 SCR 770; State Through Intelligence Officer,
and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mushtaq Ahmad and
Others (2016) 1 SCC 315; Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot
v. State of Gujarat (2005) 7 SCC SSO: [2005) 3 Suppl.
SCR 272 - referred to.
[2008) 4 SCR 644
Case Law Reference
referred to
Para 1
HIRA SINGH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
273
[1994) 1 SCR 445
(2011) 5 SCR 691
(2013) 3 SCR 770
c2016) 1 sec 315
[2005) 3 Suppl. SCR 272
referred to
refeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.