INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU versus SAMBHU SONKARAND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 821 · Decided: 02-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTICS 
CONTROL BUREAU 
v. 
SAMBHUSONKARANDANR. 
FEBRUARY 2, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND S.N. VA RIA VA, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: Sections 20(b)(i) 
and 37. 
Bail-Grant of-Conditions to be fu(filled-Ganja recovered from 
accused-High Court granted bail on the ground that the restriction imposed 
by Section 3 7 was not applicable as the maximum imprisonment provided for 
A 
B 
c 
the offence under Section 20(b}(i) was 5 years-Correctness of-Held: In 
appropriate cases court may impose a maximum punishment of 5 years under 
Section 20(b)(i)-Therefore, there is no reason to exclude the said clause D 
from the operation of Section 37-Hence, High Court erred in granting 
bail-Code. of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439. 
The appellant recovered ganja from the respondent and the Additional 
District Judge dismissed the respondent's bail application. But the High E 
Court allowed the bail application by holding that the restrictions imposed by 
Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
would not be applicable as the maximum imprisonment provided for the offence 
under Section 20(b )(i) was 5 years. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD : l. The scheme of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs & 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 reveals that the exercise tJfthe power to 
grant bail by the Special Judge is not only subject to the limitations cortained 
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but is also 
subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 of the Act which commences G 
with a non-obstante clause. The operative part of the said Section is in the 
negative in prescribing the enlargement of bail of any person accused of 
commission of an offence under the Act unless two conditions are satisfied. 
The first conditions is that prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose 
the application and the second is that the Court must be satisfied that there H 
821 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200 I) I S.C.R. 
A arc reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such 
offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting 
bail operates. As per the mandate of Section 37, no person accused of an 
offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more under the 
Act can be released on bail unless the aforesaid conditions are satisfied. Pre-
B condition for application of Section 37(l)(b) would be that the offence is 
punishable for a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more. Plain reading of 
the above said clause makes it clear that in case where tht person is accused 
of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of 5 years then he 
cannot be released unless the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. In 
case of offence punishable under Section 20(~)(i), maximum punishment is 
C for a term of imprisonment of 5 years and a fine, which may extend to 
Rs. 50,000. There is no justifiable reason to hold that the maximum term of 
imprisonment is to be excluded for the purpose of interpretation and Section 
37 would not cover in its fold offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i). 
1824-G-H; 825-A-DI 
D 
2. Further, even ifthe legislative intent in the context of other provisions, 
which provide for punishment is considered, it would be clear that Section 37 
would cover in its fold the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i). Provisions 
empowering the Court to impose punishment can be divided into four parts, 
namely, (i) less than five years, (ii) up to five years (iii) more than five years 
E and (iv) providing death penalty. Sections 26, 27 and 32 provide for 
imprisonment for a term, which may be less than five years. Section 25(a) 
provides that the imprisonment may extend up to ten years. Other Sections 
namely, Section 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20(b)(ii), 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 provide 
that the punishment shall not be 'for a term less than ten years'. Except 
Section 20(b)(i), there is no provisions which prescribes that imprisonment 
F may extend to five years. For the offence punishable under the said Section, 
in appropriate cases, Court may impose maximum punishment of five years. 
Therefore, there is no reason to exclude the said clause form the operation of 
Section 37. 1825-D-FI 
G 
Maktool Singh v. State of Puniab, 1199913 SCC 321, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appe.al No. 
137 of 200 I. 
From the Judgment and Or

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