STATE THROUGH NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU versus KULWANT SINGH

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 995 · Decided: 11-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1 
' 
STATE THROUGH NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 
A 
v. 
KULWANT SINGH 
FEBRUARY 11, 2003 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Sections 4, 21, 
36A, 41. 42, 53 and 67-Narcotic Control Bureau-legal status of-Held, 
Narcotic Control Bureau is not an authority created or constituted by an Act, C 
but an authority created under the Act-It is not a distinct legal entity but 
department of the Government-Thus, notifications empowering the officers of 
NCB to exercise powers of search, seizure and arrests under sections 36A, 41, 
42 and 67 legal and valid-Hence complaint lodged by such officer is also 
authorized. 
Interpretation of statues-In the absence of any precise definition of the 
word it must be given .ifs natural and ordinary meaning, unless the legal 
context in l-vhich the word is used requires a different meaning. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Department '-Meaning of-Discussed 
D 
E 
Respondent was convicted and sentenced for offences punishable 
under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 
1985. High Court quashed the order. It held that Narcotics Control 
Bureau(NCB) not being a department of the Government, the complaint F 
filed by an authorised officer of NCB was without authority of law as the 
officer could not be authorised to effect search, seizure and arrest under 
the Act. 
In the other appeal the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the 
petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. taking a contrary view. Hence the G 
present apptrals, 
Respondent contended that the Notifications which purport to vest 
such powers In the officers of the NCB are invalid and Illegal as NCB being 
a creature of the statute, It cannot be termed as a department of the H 
995 
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003) I S.C.R. 
A Government; that the NCR could only perform the functions enumerated 
in the notification constituting the NCR since these functions do not include . 
the functions enumerated in Section 4(2)(e) of the Act; and that the power 
of the NCR to exercise those functions could not be enlarged by issuance 
of Notifications under Sections 41, 42, 53 or 67 of .the Act as that would 
B be violative of Section 4 of the Act under which the NCR was constituted. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 4(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985 does not create the Narcotics Control Bureau. It only 
C authorizes the Central Government to take all such measures, as it deems 
necessary or expedient for the purpose of preventing and combating abuse 
of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and the illicit traffic therein. 
Sub-section 2 enumerates only some of the measures which the Central 
Government may take and sub-section 3 empowers and enables the 
Central Government in its discretion to constitute an authority or a 
D hierarchy of authorities for taking measures with respect to such of the 
.matters referred to in sub-section 2. The order constituting the authority 
is required to be published in the Official Gazette. It is apparent on a mere 
perusal of Section 4 that the Act does not itself create an authority, but 
empowers the Central Government to do so in its discretion. The authority 
E envisaged by the Section is constituted by the exercise of executive power 
by the Central Government which notifies its order constituting the 
authority by publishing the same in the Official Gazette enumerating the 
powers and functions to be exercised by it, subject to the supervision and 
control of the Central Government. Thus, the NCB is not an authority 
created or constituted by the Act, but an authority created under the Act 
F 
and the view taken by the Karnataka High Court is accepted. 
+-
-~-
(1006-G, H; 1007-A-CI 
.__.. 
1.2. Moreover, unlike statutory authorities created by an Act of the 
legislature, the NCR is not a body corporate having perpetual succession 
and a common seal, with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property 
G and capable of suing or being sued. It is clearly not a distinct legal entity. 
The notified order constituting the NCB makes this abundantly clear by 
providing that the NCR shall be headed by a Director General who will 
be assisted at the Headquarters and in the Zonal Offices by such officers 
as may be appointed by the Central Government from time to time. The 
H powers and functions that it is authorized to exercise are such of the 
t 
) 
STA TE THROUGH NARCOTICS CONTROL BUR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.