LexNARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU versus KASHIF
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1406 : 2024 INSC 1045 Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (Criminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024) 20 December 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Interpretation of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Interpretation of: Held: The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole – It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. [Para 39(i)] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Nature of: Held: While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature – Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. [Para 39(ii)] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.52A – Purpose of: Held: The purpose of insertion of Section 52A laying down the procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure the early disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances – It was inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to implement and to give effect to the International Conventions on the Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. [Para 39(iii)] *Author [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1407 Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.52A – Consequence of any lapse or delayed compliance: Held: Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, and any lapse or delayed compliance thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity which would neither entitle the accused to be released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on that ground alone. [Para 39(iv)] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.52A – Would any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself make the entire evidence inadmissible: Held: Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible – The Court would have to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused. [Para 39(v)] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.52A, 54 – Statutory presumption: Held: Any lapse or delay in compliance of s.52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail – The Court will have to consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible u/s. 54 of the NDPS Act. [Para 39(vi)] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.52A, 37 – The High Court solely on the ground of belated compliance of s.52A of the NDPS Act granted bail to the respondent – Correctness: Held: The High Court without considering as to whether the twin conditions mentioned in clause (b) sub-section (1) of s.37 were fulfilled or not, concluded without any material on record that s.37 was not attracted as there was non-compliance of s.52A of the said Act within reasonable time – The Appellant-NCB having opposed the bail application, it was obligatory on the part of the 1408 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports High Court to record a satisfaction on the cumulative conditions namely, that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent- accused was not guilty of the alleged offences and that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail, as contemplated in s.37(1)(b) of the said Act – The non-recording of such satisfaction which is mandatory in nature, has rendered the impugned order of High Court fallacious and untenable – As far as s.52A is concerned, sub-section (2) of s.52A specifies the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, for the disposal of the seized contraband or contro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.