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 Upholds Prosecution Under NDPS Act for 'Khat Leaves' Importation</h1> <h3>SANDEEP SANKAR Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS, KOCHI</h3> SANDEEP SANKAR Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS, KOCHI - 2018 (361) E.L.T. 373 (Ker.) Issues:1. Quashing of proceedings under NDPS Act for illicit importation of 'khat leaves' of African origin containing cathinone and cathine.Analysis:The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings against him in relation to the illicit importation of 180 Kgs. of 'khat leaves' of African origin, arguing that 'khat leaves' do not fall under the definition of Psychotropic Substance or Narcotic Drug under the NDPS Act and are not listed in the Schedule to the Act. However, the substance seized from the petitioner was analyzed and found to contain 'cathinone' and 'cathine,' both of which are Psychotropic Substances listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act. The Court emphasized that the focus should be on the substance's content rather than its name or botanical classification. As the seized substance contained prohibited Psychotropic Substances, it fell under the definition of Psychotropic Substance under Section 2(xxii) of the NDPS Act. The Court highlighted that possession of any substance containing such Psychotropic Substances renders one liable to prosecution under the Act, irrespective of the substance's specific name. Therefore, the Court rejected the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that technicalities cannot be used to quash prosecution under the NDPS Act.This judgment underscores the importance of substance content over nomenclature in determining liability under the NDPS Act. It clarifies that possession of substances containing prohibited Psychotropic Substances, even if not explicitly named in the Act, warrants prosecution. The Court's decision highlights the legislative intent to prevent circumvention of the Act through semantic arguments and underscores the broad scope of liability under the NDPS Act based on substance composition rather than specific names. The judgment serves as a precedent for interpreting and applying the NDPS Act in cases involving substances not explicitly listed but containing prohibited Psychotropic Substances, ensuring effective enforcement of drug control laws.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
