LexUNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER versus SANJEEV V. DESHPANDE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [20141 11 S.C.R. 981 UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER v. SANJEEV V. DESHPANDE (Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2007) AUGUST 12, 2014 [R.M. LODHA, CJI., J. CHELAMESWAR AND . A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. s. 8 - Applicability of - Held: s. 8 is applicable to all the psychotropic substances which are mentioned in Schedule to the Act but not in Schedule-I to the Rules framed under the Act - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 - rr. 53 and 84. s. 37 - Ambit and Scope of - Discussed. Disposing of the appeals and remitting the matters to the respective High Courts, the Court HELD: 1. It cannot be said that prohibition contained u/s. 8 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is not·attracted in respect to all those psychotropic substances which find a mention in the Schedule to the Act but not in Schedule-I to the Rules framed under the Act. [Para 27] [994-E] A B c D E F 2. 53oth Rules 53 and 64 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are in the nature of exception to the general scheme of Chapters VI and VII respectively containing a list of .narcotic drugs and G psychotropic substances which cannot be dealt in any manner, notwithstanding the other provisions of these two chapters. Neither Rule 53 nor Rule .64 is· a source of authority for prohibiting the DEALING IN narcotic drugs 981 H 982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. A and psychotropic substances, the source is Section 8. [Para 34] [999-H; 1000-A, BJ B c D State of Uttaranthal vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2007) 1 SCC 355: 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 843 - disapproved. . Union of India vs. Thamisharasi (1995) 4 SCC 190: 1995 (3) SCR 905 and Collector of Customs, New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira (2004) 3 SCC 549: 2004 (2) SCR 1092- referred to. Case Law Reference: 1995 (3) SCR 905 referred to Para 17 2004 (2) SCR 1092 referred to Para 17 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 843 disapproved Para 34 CRIMINAL APPELLATEJURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal , No. 660 of 2007. From the Judgment & Order date 07.03.;1006 of the High E Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 4741 of 2005. ' WITH .. Crl. Appeal Nos. 848, 855 and 876 of 2011. > ' F Crl. Appeal Nos. 1711, 1713, 1710, 1712, 1714, 1715, 1716 and 1717 of 2014. .. Pinky Anand, ASG, K. Radhakrishnan, K.T.S. Tulsi, R. Basant, Binu Tamta, Sushma Manchanda, Sunita Sharma (for G B.K. Prasad), Sudhir Pillania, Somvir Deswal, Pramit Saxena, Vishwa Pal Singh, Somesh Chandra Jha, Amit Kumar, Rishi Malhotra, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Gaurav Bhargava, Niraj Gupta, Sushi Karanjkar, Vinod N. Naik, K.N. Rai, B.K. Prasad, Yash Pal Dhingra, Mukesh K. Giri, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, H Hemantika Wahi, Preeti Bhardwaj, Puja Singh, Shreekant N. • '· •• UNION OF INDIA v. SANJEEV V. DESHPANDE 983 Terdal, D. Mahesh Babu, Shankar Chillarge, Asha Gopalari A Nair, Sonia S. Chillarge for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was deliv~red by CHELAMESWAR, J. 1. Leave granted in the special leave petitions. 2. This batch of matters is listed pursuant to various orders of this Court opining that these matters are required to be· considered by a larger Bench. 3. The first of such orders is dated 20~h April, 2007 made in Criminal Appeal No.644 of 2007. By the said order, leave was granted in SLP (Crl.) No.4976 of 2006 .. The order reads as follows:- B . c "Our attention has been invited by the learned counsel to D two decisions of. this Court; namely, a decision cif 3-Judge Bench in Collector of Customs. New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira (2004) 3 SCC 549 and subsequent decision of 2- Judge Bench in State of Uttaranchal vs. Rajesh Kuamr Gupta (2007) 1 sec 355. E Reference was also made of Section 80 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which reads as under: "80. Application of the.Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 not barred. - The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) or the rules made therellnder. In our opinion, in view of the fact that the effect of Section 80 ·requires to be considered, we grant leave and direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for placing the matter before a 3-Judge Bench. F G H 984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. A 4. Each of the remaining matters came
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.