TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Amends Charge Due to Quantity Threshold Error</h1> <h3>Mohamad Ali Jinna Versus Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai</h3> Mohamad Ali Jinna Versus Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai - 2018 (359) E.L.T. 36 (Mad.) Issues Involved:1. Legality of Charge No. 4 under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act.2. Determination of the quantity of psychotropic substance (Zolpidem) seized.3. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act concerning bail provisions.4. Interpretation of 'commercial quantity' versus 'intermediate quantity' under the NDPS Act.5. Impact of the Chemical Analysis Report on the charges framed.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Charge No. 4 under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act:The revision challenges the framing of Charge No. 4 by the Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, which imputes the offense under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution's case involves the seizure of 25.160 kgs of Amphetamine from A1 and A2, and 46809 Zolpidem tablets from A3 and A4. The Chemical Analysis Report indicated the presence of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride and Zolpidem Tartrate. The petitioners argue that the charge should be under Section 22(b) (intermediate quantity) rather than Section 22(c) (commercial quantity).2. Determination of the quantity of psychotropic substance (Zolpidem) seized:The Chemical Analysis Report dated 9-2-2016 confirmed that Zolpidem Tartrate was not detected in Zopalet tablets, but was present in Zolfresh tablets. The inventory clarified that the total number of Zolfresh tablets seized was 18415, each containing 10 mg of Zolpidem, amounting to 184.15 gms. The court noted that the commercial quantity for Zolpidem is 250 gms, and the small quantity is 10 gms. Therefore, the seized quantity falls within the intermediate range.3. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act concerning bail provisions:Section 37 of the NDPS Act makes certain offenses non-bailable and imposes limitations on bail for offenses involving commercial quantities. The petitioners' concern is that Charge No. 4, as framed under Section 22(c), attracts these stringent bail provisions. They argue that the charge should be under Section 22(b) (intermediate quantity), which does not attract Section 37's bail limitations.4. Interpretation of 'commercial quantity' versus 'intermediate quantity' under the NDPS Act:The court examined the interpretation of 'commercial quantity' and 'intermediate quantity' in light of the NDPS Act and relevant case law. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Ouseph alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala, which considered the actual content of the psychotropic substance for determining the quantity. The court also noted the Division Bench's decision in John Paul v. Union of India, which upheld the validity of Notification S.O. 2941(E)/2009, clarifying that the entire mixture or solution should be considered for determining the quantity.5. Impact of the Chemical Analysis Report on the charges framed:The Chemical Analysis Report played a crucial role in determining the appropriate charges. The report ruled out the presence of Zolpidem Tartrate in Zopalet tablets and confirmed its presence in Zolfresh tablets. Based on this, the court concluded that the total weight of Zolpidem in the seized Zolfresh tablets was 184.15 gms, which falls within the intermediate quantity range.Conclusion:The court allowed the revision, directing the alteration of Charge No. 4 from Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c) (commercial quantity) to Section 8(c) read with Section 22(b) (intermediate quantity). This decision was based on the actual content of Zolpidem in the seized tablets, which was below the commercial quantity threshold. The court emphasized that the determination of small or commercial quantity should be based on the content of the psychotropic substance in dosage form, as clarified by the Notification S.O. 2941(E)/2009 and relevant case law.
TaxTMI 