STATE OF PUNJAB versus RAKESH KUMAR

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 415 · Decided: 03-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
415
STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
RAKESH KUMAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1512 of  2018)
DECEMBER 03, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.389 – Suspension of
sentence – In the instant case, the respondents were apprehended
with “manufactured drugs” and convicted by trial court under ss.21
and 22 of the NDPS Act – High Court allowed the applications for
suspension of sentence filed by accused-respondents holding that,
since the instant matters related to “manufactured drugs”, the
respondents should have been tried for the violation of provisions
of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940  and not under the NDPS Act –
State filed instant appeals – Held:  While the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act deals with drugs which are intended to be used for therapeutic
or medicinal usage, the NDPS Act intends to curb and penalize the
usage of drugs which are used for intoxication or for getting a
stimulant effect – Thus, NDPS Act, should not be read in exclusion
to Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Additionally, it is the prerogative of
the State to prosecute the offender in accordance with law – In the
instant case, since the action of the accused-Respondents amounted
to a prima-facie violation of s.8 of the NDPS Act, they were charged
under s.22 of the NDPS Act – The decision rendered by High Court
that the accused-respondents must be tried under the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940 instead of the NDPS Act, as they were found in
possession of the “manufactured drugs”, does not hold good in
law – Further, the accused-respondents had approached the High
Court seeking suspension of sentence – However, in granting the
relief, the High Court erroneously made observations on the merits
of the case while the appeals were still pending before it – In view
of the facts and circumstances of the instant case and gravity of
offence alleged against accused-respondents, the order of High
Court directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail was clearly
unsustainable in law and is set aside – Drugs and Cosmetics
Act,1940 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
– ss.21 and 22.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 415
415
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
416                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: Legislative intent of
enactment – Discussed.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
Legislative intent of enactment – Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:  1.1 The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was
enacted to specifically prevent sub-standard drugs and to maintain
high standards of medical treatment. The Drugs and Cosmetics
Act,1940 was mainly intended to curtail the menace of adulteration
of drugs and also of production, manufacture, distribution and
sale of spurious and sub-standard drugs. On the other hand, the
N.D.P.S Act is a special law enacted by the Parliament with an
object to control and regulate the operations relating to narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances. While the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act deals with drugs which are intended to be used
for therapeutic or medicinal usage, on the other hand the
N.D.P.S Act intends to curb and penalize the usage of drugs which
are used for intoxication or for getting a stimulant effect.
[Para 8][422-G-H; 423-A]
Chimanlal Jagjivandas Sheth v. State of Maharashtra AIR
1963 SC 665 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 344 – relied on
Inderjeet Singh v. State of Punjab 2014 (3) RCR (Crl) 953 –
referred to
1.2  Section 8 of the 1985 Act, is the prohibitory clause
whose violation would lead to penal consequence.  Further, Section
21 provides for punishment for contraventions in relation to
manufactured drugs and preparations and Section 22 provides
for punishment for contraventions in relation to psychotropic
substances. Both the above provisions provide for the imposition
of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and the imposition
of a fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which
may be extended to two lakh rupees, if the recovered substance
amounts to commercial quantity. However, the proviso
appended thereto empowers the Court, with a discretionary
power to impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. In the instant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
417
case, the accused-respondents were found in bulk possession
of manufactured drugs without any valid authorization.
[Paras 9, 10, 11][423-B, G-H; 924-B-C]
Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) 13 SCC
1 : 

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