LexUNION OF INDIA versus SHEO SHAMBHU GIRI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 803 UNION OF INDIA v. SHEO SHAMBHU GIRi (Criminal Appeal No. 1027 of 2008) MARCH 25, 2014 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] A B Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: s.23 - Applicability of - Held: s.23 creates three offences i.e. import into India, export out of India; and transhipment of any C narcotic drug or psychotropic substance - Word "transhipment" occurring u/s. 23 must necessarily be understood in the context of the scheme of the section and the preceding expressions of ''import into India" and "export out of India" to mean only transhipment for the purpose of D either import into India or export out of India - In the instant case, no evidence to prove that the respondent was carrying contraband either in the course of import into India or export . out of India - Therefore, High Court rightly set aside conviction · uls.23. · The sole respondent along with twc other accused was tried for offences under Sections 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The trial court found the respondent guilty of E an offence under Section 23 of the NDPS Act but found that the charge under Section 29 of the Act was not F proved against him. He was, therefore, convicted for an offence under Section 23 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh for an offence under Section 23 of the NDPS ~ G . The High Court held that prosecution could not prove that the contraband was of foreign origin and set aside his conviction under Section 23 of the NDPS Act. 803 H 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 3 S.C.R. A Hence the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HEl,.D: 1. Section 23 of the NDPS Act creates three offences and they are; (i) import into India, (ii) Expor~ out B of India; and (iii) Transhipment of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The word "tranships" occurring under Section 23 must necessarily be understood in the context of the scheme of the Section and the preceding expressions of "import into India" and "export out of C India" to mean only transhipment for the purpose of either import into India or export out of India. [Para 7] [807- A-D] 2. It can be seen from the language of the Section 0 9(1) of NDPS Act that the Central Government is authorized to make rules which may permit and regulate various activities such as cultivation, gathering, production, possession, sale, transport, inter state import or export of various substances like coca leaves, poppy E straw, opium poppy and opium derivatives etc., while the Parliament used the expression transport in the context of inter-state import or export of such material in sub- section 1 (a)(vil, in the context of importing to India and export out of India, Parliament employed the expression transhipment in Section 9(i)(a)(vii). Therefore, the High F Court rightly concluded that the conviction of the respondent under Section 23 of the NDPS Act cannot be sustained. There is no reason to interfere with the same. [Paras 9 and 1 O] [808-G-H; 809-A-B] G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1027 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 359 H of 2003. UNION OF INDIA v. SHEO SHAMBHU GIRi 805 Dr. Ashok Dhamija, Binu Tamta, Sonia Dhamija, B.K. A . Prasad, Shawna Singh Dev, B.V. Balaram Das for the Appellant. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Aviral Shukla for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by J. CHELAMESWAR, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2003 of the High Court of Patna, B the instant appeal is preferred by the Union of India. c 2. By the judgment under appeal, three appeals came to be preferred by the three different accused who were convicted for different offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act") D by the Court of 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mothari of East Champaran District in Excise Case No. 31 of 2001 by its judgment dated 12th June, 2003. By the judgment under appeal, the conviction of all the appellants was set aside. It is not very clear whether any appeals are preferred against the acquittal of the other two accused except the respondent E herein. 3. The sole respondent along with two other accused was tried for offences under Section
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.