LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI versus ASHIF KHAN @ KALU

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 940 · Decided: 03-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 3 S.C.R. 940 
A 
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
v. 
ASHIF KHAN @ KALU 
., 
(Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 2009) 
B 
MARCH 3, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK 
KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
c - s. 21 - Substance recovered quantified at 310 gms - Found 
to be containing 2.945 gms of 'heroin' - Sentence structure 
under the Act linked to quantity of narcotic drugs/psychotropic 
substances carried - Dispute as to whether the offending 
material was of small, intermediate or commercial quantity -
D Held: Total weight of the entire substance was not relevant-
, " 
Only the actual content by weight of 'heroin' was relevant- The 
High Court rightly held that the quantity seized was small 
quantity - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 
(Amendment) Act, 2001. 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 428 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.05.06 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2006. 
F 
A. Sharan, ASG, Brijinder Chabar, Subhash Kaushik, Anil 
-
Katiyar and D.S. Mahra for the Appellants. 
K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 
H 
Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appeal 
940 
' 
' 
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. ASHIF KHAN@ KALU 
941 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
filed by the State against the judgment of the trial Court A 
whereby the respondent had been convicted under Section 
21 (a) and (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 
Act, 1985 (in short the 'NDPS Act'). The quantity of substance 
recovered from the accused was 310 gms. which was prima 
facie detected to be heroin. Two samples of five grams were B 
taken and those were sent for Forensic Science Laboratory 
for testing. After testing the said samples the Laboratory gave 
a report on 5.2.2004. The report revealed that samples were 
found to contain 0.95 % diacetylmorphine. In view of the 
percentage contained the weight of heroin came to be 2.945 c 
gms. of heroin. It was observed by the High Court that in a 
mixture of a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance with one 
or more neutral substance the quantity of the neutral substance 
or substances is not to be taken while considering whether 
small quantity 01ยท a commercial quantity of the narcotic drug or D 
psychotropic substance is recovered but only the actual 
contents by weight of the narcotic drug or psychotropic 
substance as the case may be relevant for determining whether 
it would constitute a small quantity or commercial quantity. The 
High Court therefore held that the quantity seized was a small 
quantity and, therefore, the conviction would be under Section 
E 
21(a). The appeal was accordingly dismissed by upholding the 
conclusions of the trial Court. 
3. The order of the High Court is challenged in this appeal. 
4. In E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic 
Control Bureau (2008 (5) SCC 161 ), it was held as follows: 
F 
(1) The provisions of the NDPS Act wf}re amended by the 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 
(Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 9 of 2001) (w.e. f. 2.10.2001 ). 
G 
which rationalized the punishment structure under the 
NDPS Act by providing graded sentences linked to the 
quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances 
carried. 
H 
942 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
(2) Thus, by the amending Act, the sentence structure 
โ€ข 
changed drastically. "Small quantity" and "commercial 
quantity" were defined under Section 2(xxiii-a) and Section 
.., 
2(vii-a) respectively. New section 21 also provides for 
proportionate sentence for possessing small, intermediate 
B 
and commercial quantities of offending material. 
(3) As per Entry 56 of the Notification dated 19.10.2001 
issued by the Central Government which deals with heroin, 
small quantity has been mentioned as 5 gm and 
c 
commercial quantity has been mentioned as 250 gms. 
(4) So the basic question for decision is whether the 
contravention involved in this case is small, intermediate 
or commercial quantity under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 
and whether the total weight of the substance is relevant 
' 
D 
or percentage of heroin content translated into weight is 
relevant for ascertaining the quantity recovered from the 
accused. 
5. It was held that the percentage of heroin content 
E 
t~anslated into weight is relevant. 

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