STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus NIRMAL KAUR @ NIMMO AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 20-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
369
   [2022] 11 S.C.R. 369
369
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
v.
NIRMAL KAUR @ NIMMO AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 956 of 2012)
OCTOBER 20, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
s.2(xvii)(a) and (b) and s.15 – Conviction in relation to ‘poppy straw’
– ‘Poppy straw’ defined to mean all parts of ‘opium poppy’ except
the seeds – ‘Opium poppy’ defined under Clause (xvii) of s.2 of the
1985 Act – As per sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii) of s.2 of the 1985
Act, ‘opium poppy’ means the plant of the species ‘papaver
somniferum L’ – As per sub-clause (b) thereof, ‘opium poppy’ would
also mean the plant of any other species of ‘papaver’ from which
‘opium’ or any ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ can be extracted and which
the Central Government, by notification in the official gazette, has
declared to be ‘opium poppy’ for the purposes of the 1985 Act –
Whether it is sufficient for the prosecution to establish that the raw
material contains ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’ to bring it under
sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii) of s.2 of the Act or is it necessary for
the prosecution to further establish that, though the seized material
contains ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’, the genus of the seized
material is ‘papaver somniferum L’ or any other species of ‘papaver’
from which ‘opium’ or any ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ can be extracted
and which is notified in the Official Gazette by the Central
Government to be ‘opium poppy’ for the purposes of the 1985 Act –
High Court was of the opinion that the tests conducted by the
Chemical Examiner to ascertain whether ‘meconic acid’ and
‘morphine’ were present in the sample stuff, were not enough to
reach the conclusion that the stuff was, in fact, ‘poppy straw’ –
Held: Prior to enactment of the 1985 Act, it was only the plant
‘papaver somniferum L’ which was included in the definition of 1878
and 1930 enactments – By virtue of sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii)
of Section 2 of the 1985 Act, the same has been retained – However,
noticing that there was some material to show that some other species
of ‘papaver’ may also be used for the production of ‘opium’, the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
legislature, by an abundant precaution, also added sub-clause (b)
in Clause (xvii) of s.2 of the 1985 Act so as to enable the Central
Government to notify such a species from which ‘opium’ or any
‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ can be extracted – The legislative intent is
clear that the 1985 Act, in addition to retaining the species of
‘papaver somniferum L’ in the definition of ‘opium poppy’, enabled
the Central Government to include any other species of ‘papaver’
from which ‘opium’ or any ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ could be
extracted – The legislative intent is to bring any other species of
‘papaver’ which can be used for manufacture of ‘opium’ within the
prohibitory and regulatory provisions of the 1985 Act – Once it is
established that the seized material contains ‘meconic acid’ and
‘morphine’, it will be sufficient to establish that it is derived from
the plant ‘papaver somniferum L’ as defined in sub-clause (a) of
Clause (xvii) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act – Once a Chemical
Examiner establishes that the seized ‘poppy straw’ indicates a
positive test for the contents of ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’, it is
sufficient to establish that it is covered by subclause (a) of Clause
(xvii) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act and no further test would be
necessary for establishing that the seized material is a part of
‘papaver somniferum L’.
Interpretation of Statutes – Heydon’s/Mischief Rule – Meaning
of – Discussed – Four factors to be considered while applying the
rule (i) position before enactment of the Act (ii) mischief and defects
for which the earlier enactments did not provide (iii) remedy (iv)
reason of the remedy – Held: Legislature by incorporating sub-
clause (a) in Clause (xvii) of s.2 of the 1985 Act, intended to continue
‘papaver somniferum L’ in the definition of ‘opium poppy’ – However,
by taking abundant precautions and to take care of a situation
where any other species of ‘papaver’ was found to be used for the
production of ‘opium’, the legislature vested the Central Government
with a power to include such a variety to mean ‘opium poppy’ for
the purpose of the 1985 Act – The defect noticed by the legislature
was that, though ‘papaver somniferum L’, which contained
‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’ and was used for the production 

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