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 clarifies NDPS Act on Purity Test for narcotic substances; appellant's sentence reduced to 6 months.</h1> <h3>M Veludurai Versus The State represented by The Superintendent of Customs, Special Narcotic Cell</h3> The Court interpreted Sections 21(a) and 21(c) of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the necessity of a Purity Test to determine the quantity of narcotic ... Validity of conviction - Whether in the absence of exact quantity/percentage of narcotic drug/psychotropic substance found in the seized contraband the punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations is to be imposed u/s 21(a) or u/s 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Held that:- the conviction passed by the trial Court u/s 21(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act was liable to be set aside - the appellant/accused was convicted u/s 21(a) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months - the appellant/accused had already undergone the sentence as modified by the Court he was ordered to be set at liberty - in the absence of Purity Test the contraband seized shall be construed only as a small quantity. it is absolutely necessary to conduct Purity Test to ascertain the exact quantity of the – in the case of contraband which is neither a mixture nor a preparation and if the contraband is a Narcotic Drug/Psychotropic Substance simplicitor - there was no need for Purity Test - the entire quantity of Narcotic Drug/Psychotropic Substance shall be taken into consideration for deciding as to the same is a small quantity or a commercial quantity or an intermediate quantity for the purpose of conviction - appeal decided in favour of accused. Issues:1. Interpretation of Sections 21(a) and 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.2. Requirement of Purity Test for determining the quantity of narcotic substances.3. Impact of Purity Test on the classification of contraband as small quantity or commercial quantity.4. Revision of the conviction and sentence based on the findings of the Division Bench.Issue 1: Interpretation of Sections 21(a) and 21(c) of the NDPS ActThe appellant was charged under Section 8(c) read with Section 29 and Section 8(c) read with Section 21 of the NDPS Act. The primary contention revolved around whether the contraband seized should be considered under Section 21(a) or Section 21(c of the Act. The Court deliberated on the necessity of conducting a Purity Test to ascertain the exact quantity of the narcotic substance contained in the seized contraband.Issue 2: Requirement of Purity TestThe Court emphasized the importance of conducting a Purity Test, especially in cases involving mixtures or preparations of narcotic substances. It was established that the absence of a Purity Test would lead to the contraband being construed as a small quantity, affecting the liability of the accused for punishment under the NDPS Act.Issue 3: Impact of Purity Test on Quantity ClassificationThe Division Bench clarified that for contraband that is not a mixture or preparation falling under specific categories, the entire quantity of the narcotic substance should be considered for determining whether it constitutes a small quantity, commercial quantity, or intermediate quantity. The Court highlighted the significance of the Purity Test in accurately assessing the quantity of the seized substance.Issue 4: Revision of Conviction and SentenceBased on the findings of the Division Bench, the Court revised the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The Court set aside the conviction under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and instead convicted the appellant under Section 21(a), leading to a reduced sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment. Considering the appellant's prolonged judicial custody, the Court decided not to impose any fine amount on the appellant.In conclusion, the Court partly allowed the Criminal Appeal, modifying the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in the original judgment. As the appellant had already served the modified sentence, the Court ordered the appellant to be released unless further detention was required in connection with other legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
