LexMD. SAHABUDDIN & ANR. versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 1193 MD. SAHABUDDIN & ANR. v. STATE OF ASSAM (Criminal Appeal No. 1602 of 2012) OCTOBER 05, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND F.AKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 A , B - Transportation of huge quantity of cough syrup without valid c documents - Cough syrup containing narcotic substance of codeine phosphate beyond the prescribed limit - Bail application of accused-appellants - Rejection of - Propriety - Held: When the appellants were not in a position to explain as to whom the supply was meant for, and in the absence of D any other valid explanation for effecting the transportation of such a huge quantity of the cough syrup which contained the narcotic substance of codeine phosphate beyond the prescribed limit, the application for grant of bail could not be considered - Since the appellants had no documents in their E possession to disclose as to for what purpose such a huge quantity of Schedule 'H' drug containing narcotic substance was being transported and that too stealthily, it could not be simply presumed that such transportation was for therapeutic practice as mentioned in the Notifications dated 14. 11. 1985 F and 29. 1. 1993 - In view of the conduct of the appellants, they cannot be heard to state that they were not expected to fulfill any of the statutory requirements either under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act or under the NDPS Act - Drugs & Cosmetics Act - s. 27 - Drugs & Cosmetics Rules - Rules 65, 97, 61 (1) and 61 (2) - Central Government Notifications bearing G S.0.826(E) dated 14.11.1985 and G.S.R.40(E) published on 29.1.1993 - Bail. Words and Phrases - "Therapeutic practice" - Meaning. 1193 H 1194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 8 S.C.R. A According to the prosecution, the accused- appellants were involved in the transportation of huge quantity of cough syrup without valid documents and further that the said quantity of cough syrup contained the narcotic substance of codeine phosphate beyond the B prescribed limit, and thus offence was made out under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellants were produced before the C.J.M. who remanded them to judicial custody. The appellants moved the Court of Sessions Judge for C grant of bail but the Sessions Judge rejected the bail application. Thereafter, the appellants moved the High Court, which having declined to grant bail, the present appeal was filed. D E F Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In view of the conduct of the appellants in having transported huge quantity of 347 cartons containing 100 bottles in each carton of 100 ml. Phensedyl cough syrup and 102 cartons, each carton containing 100 bottles of 100 ml. Recodex cough syrup without valid documents for such transportation, they cannot be heard to state that they were not expected to fulfill any of the statutory requirements either under the provisions of Drugs & Cosmetics Act or under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. [Para 10) [1200-8-C] 1.2. When the appellants were not in a position to explain as to whom the supply was meant either for distribution or for any licensed dealer dealing with G pharmaceutical products and in the absence of any other valid explanation for effecting the transportation of such a huge quantity of the cough syrup which contained the narcotic substance of codeine phosphate beyond the prescribed limit, the application for grant of bail cannot H MD. SAHABUDDIN & ANR. v. STATE OF ASSAM 1195 be considered. The contention of the appellants was that A the content of the codeine phosphate in each 100 ml. bottle if related to the permissible dosage, namely, 5 ml. would only result in less than 10 mg. of codeine phosphate thereby would fall within the permissible limit as stipulated in the Notifications dated 14.11.1985 and B 29.1.1993. However, as rightly held by the High Court, the said contention should have satisfied the twin conditions, namely, that the contents of the narcotic substance should not be more than 100 mg. of codeine, per dose unit and with a concentration of not more than c 2.5% in undivided preparation apart from the other condition, namely, that it should be only for therapeutic practice. Therapeutic practice as per dictionary meaning means 'contributing to cure of disease'. In other words, the assessment of codeine
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.