SAJAN ABRAHAM versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 653 · Decided: 26-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SAJAN ABRAHAM 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
FEBRUARY 26, 2004 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances ict, 1985-Section 21-
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985-Rule 66-Person 
found in possession of psychotropic substance--Conviction under-Justification C 
of~Held: Quantity of psychotropic substance seized falls within the limit of 
small quantity used for personal medicinal purpose thus, entitled to benefit 
under the Rule and no offence under Section made out-Hence conviction not 
justified-Also no separate permit required to claim benefit. 
According to the prosecution, appellant was found in possession of 25 D 
ampoules of manufactured drug-Buprenorphine Hydrocholride (Tidigesic) 
alongwith three syringes. He was charged for having committing the offence 
punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985. Triai Court acquitted the appellant of the charge. 
However, High Court set aside the acquittal. Appellant filed an appeal before 
this Court but the same was dismissed. He then filed a review petition which E 
was allowed by this Court. Hence the present appeal. Respondent-State 
contended that unless the appellant held a permit granted under Rule 66 of 
the NDPS Rules, he cannot claim benefit under the provisions of that Rule. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. Under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985 possession, sale, purchase etc. of the drugs and 
preparations mentioned therein in contravention of any provision of the Act 
F 
or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder is made 
punishable. Therefore, if any rule permits a person to possess any psychotropic G 
substance within the limits specified under the rule and subject to such 
conditions as the rule may prescribe, such a person cannot be held guilty of 
the offence under Section 21 of the Act if it is shown that his possession is not 
in contravention of such rule. Rule 66 sub-rule (2) cif the Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 permits a person to keep in his possession 
653 
H 
654 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A for his personal medicinal use the psychotropic substance upto one hundred 
. dosage units at a time. (656-F-G; 657-El 
· 
1.2. In the instant case, deposition of the Investigating Officer·as well 
as the deposition of appellant's mother indicates that the appellant used the 
said drug. Moreover, three syringes were also recovered from the appellant 
B is indicative of the fact that the psychotropic substance recovered from him 
was for his personal consumption and not for trading purposes. Therefore, 
having regard to the provisions of Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules read with 
Section 21 of the NDPS Act, the psychotropic substance Buprenorphine 
Hydrocholride (Tidigesic) found in possession of the appellant was not in 
C breach of Rule 66 of the .NDPS Rules and having regard to the fact that the 
same was for his personal consumption, no offence under Section 21 of the 
NDPS Act is made out. (657-F; 658-D-E] 
D 
Hussain v. State of Kera/a, 12000) 8 SCC 139, relied on. 
Ouseph@ Thankachan y. State of Kera/a, [2004) 4 SCC 446, referred to. 
1.3. Having regard to the provisions of Section 9 of the NDPS Act under 
which the Rules have been framed, the Central Government is empowered 
by Rules ~o permit and regulate the matters mentioned therein. Rule 66 itself 
permits possession of psychotropic substance below a specified quantity and 
E subject to the conditions stated therein. Thus ifthe possession of psychotropic 
substance is justified under the said Rule, no separate permit is required to 
F 
G 
H 
be issued to the person possessing such psychotropic substance because the 
Rule itself permits possession of such psychotropic substance to the extent 
mentioned in the Rule and subject to the conditions laid down therein. 
(658-B-C) 
CRIMINAL APPEJ,.LA TE JURISDICTION : Crminal Appeal No. 
1022 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.1997 of the Kerala High Court 
in Crl. A .. No. 533 of 1994: 
R. Sathish, for the Appellant. 
Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Respond~nt. 
The Juclgment of the Court was delivered by 
SA.JAN ABRAHAM v. STATE OF KERALA [SINGH . .I.] 
655 
B.P. SINGH, J. The appellant herein was charged of having committed A 
the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.