1965 (10) TMI 84 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of 1333-F Act, Confirms Chloral Hydrate Classification

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 1333-F Act following the introduction of the Dangerous Drugs Act and the Drugs Act. It confirmed the intra ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the 1333-F Act post-introduction of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, and the Drugs Act, 1940.2. Intra vires status of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Chloral Hydrate (Chloral) Rules, 1962, under the amended 1333-F Act.3. Classification of chloral hydrate as a narcotic drug or intoxicating drug under the relevant legislative entries.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the 1333-F Act post-introduction of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, and the Drugs Act, 1940:The appellant contended that the 1333-F Act was repealed by the introduction of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, and the Drugs Act, 1940, through subsequent legislation. The court analyzed the legislative competence and the scope of these Acts. It was noted that the 1333-F Act, which was in force in Hyderabad since 1924, dealt primarily with excise duties on intoxicating drugs, including opium and other substances that could be notified by the government. The Dangerous Drugs Act primarily dealt with the prohibition and control of certain drugs but did not cover the excise aspect. Similarly, the Drugs Act focused on the standard and quality of drugs and did not pertain to excise duties. The court held that the introduction of these Acts did not result in the complete effacement of the 1333-F Act, which remained valid for the purpose of excise duties on intoxicating drugs and could be amended by the Hyderabad Act No. 22 of 1953.2. Intra vires status of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Chloral Hydrate (Chloral) Rules, 1962, under the amended 1333-F Act:The appellant argued that the Rules framed in 1962 were not within the powers conferred by the amended 1333-F Act. The court examined the amended Act, which defined 'intoxicating drugs' to include any substance notified by the government as an intoxicating drug, provided it was not opium, coca leaf, or a manufactured drug as defined in the Dangerous Drugs Act. The amended Act was primarily an excise Act, allowing the state to impose excise duties on notified substances. Chloral hydrate was notified as an intoxicating drug under the amended Act, and the Rules were framed accordingly. The court found that the Rules, which provided for the manufacture, possession, sale, import, export, and transport of chloral hydrate, were intra vires the amended Act.3. Classification of chloral hydrate as a narcotic drug or intoxicating drug under the relevant legislative entries:The court considered whether chloral hydrate could be classified as a narcotic drug or intoxicating drug under entry 51 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The appellant admitted that chloral hydrate was used as a hypnotic and sedative, which fits the dictionary definition of a narcotic. The court also noted that chloral hydrate increased intoxication when mixed with liquor, supporting its classification as an intoxicating drug. The court rejected the appellant's reliance on the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, noting that chloral hydrate was not classified as a medicinal preparation under this Act and that the appellant had not raised this argument before the High Court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the 1333-F Act post-introduction of the Dangerous Drugs Act and the Drugs Act, confirming the intra vires status of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Chloral Hydrate (Chloral) Rules, 1962, and affirming the classification of chloral hydrate as a narcotic and intoxicating drug under the relevant legislative entries. The appeal was dismissed with costs.