2012 (7) TMI 228 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Stresses Tight Controls on Drug Destruction to Prevent Misuse

UNION OF INDIA Versus MOHANLAL

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to procedures for the destruction of seized narcotics to prevent pilferage and ... Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - appeal against acquittal of respondents of the charges framed against them under said Act primarily for the reason that no evidence regarding the destruction of opium allegedly seized from the respondents had been provided by the prosecution - appellant emphasizing need for a proper and prompt exercise of the power to destroy the seized contrabands, failure of which resulting in accumulation of the seized drugs and narcotics in large quantities thereby increasing manifold the chances of pilferage for re-circulation in the market from the stores where such drugs are kept - Held that:- While fight against production, sale and transportation of the NDPS is an ongoing process, it is equally important to ensure that the quantities that are seized by the police and other agencies do not go back in circulation on account of neglect or apathy on the part of those handling the process of seizure, storage and destruction of such contrabands. Immediate steps are, therefore, necessary to prevent the situation from going out of hand. Therefore, it is considered necessary to direct collection of the information from the police heads of each one of the States through the Chief Secretary concerned on the following aspects: Seizure, Storage, Disposal/ Destruction, Judicial Supervision Issues Involved:1. Procedure for destruction of seized narcotics.2. Compliance with prescribed procedures.3. Measures to prevent pilferage and re-circulation.4. Judicial supervision and oversight.Detailed Analysis:1. Procedure for Destruction of Seized Narcotics:The High Court of Madhya Pradesh acquitted the respondents under Section 8/18(b) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, due to the absence of evidence regarding the destruction of 3.36 Kgs. of opium allegedly seized from the respondents. The High Court noted that the contraband should have been produced before the Trial Court if it was not destroyed as per the prevalent procedure.The Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeal, expressed concerns about whether the prescribed procedure for the destruction of contraband was being followed. The Court emphasized the need to examine if the procedures outlined in Standing Order No.1/89 and the Ministry of Finance's Circular dated 22nd February 2011 were being adhered to.2. Compliance with Prescribed Procedures:The Court requested Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Amicus Curiae, to identify weak links in the procedure for search, disposal, and destruction of narcotics. Mr. Sinha highlighted that the procedures for destruction were not being followed, leading to the accumulation of seized drugs and increased chances of pilferage. He referenced a press report indicating that police stores in Bathinda were overflowing with seized narcotics, including drugs seized as far back as the early eighties.Mr. Sinha also pointed to similar issues in other states like Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Bihar, and cited the judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, where the Supreme Court emphasized the need for prompt destruction of seized contrabands. He also mentioned an order by the Patna High Court recommending an overhaul of the existing system for seizure, sampling, and sending of seized articles to the FSL.3. Measures to Prevent Pilferage and Re-circulation:Mr. Sinha argued that the destruction of seized narcotic drugs is not only a statutory duty but a constitutional mandate under Article 47 of the Constitution of India and Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985. He stressed that more needs to be done to reduce the vulnerability of such contrabands to substitution or theft while in storage. He referenced international conventions like the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and the SAARC Convention for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1990, to underscore the global commitment to eliminating drug abuse.The Court acknowledged the widespread and formidable nature of the problem and the complacency of the government and officers dealing with it. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that seized quantities do not re-enter circulation due to neglect or apathy.4. Judicial Supervision and Oversight:The Court directed the collection of detailed information from police heads of each state through the Chief Secretary on various aspects of seizure, storage, and destruction of narcotic drugs. The Court outlined specific questions regarding the seizure, storage, and destruction procedures, and the judicial supervision involved.The Court also directed the Chief Secretaries of the States to ensure that a questionnaire is served upon the Director General of Police of the State for a report, and the Registrar General of the State High Court to collect and scrutinize the reports. The Registrar Generals were instructed to secure answers to queries regarding judicial supervision from District and Sessions Judges.The Court further directed the chiefs of central government agencies like the Narcotics Control Bureau, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence, and Commissionerates of Customs & Central Excise to issue similar questionnaires and submit reports within three months.Conclusion:The Supreme Court highlighted the critical need for strict adherence to procedures for the destruction of seized narcotics to prevent pilferage and re-circulation. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial supervision and directed the collection of detailed information from state and central authorities to address the systemic issues in the current procedures.