Court Denies Bail for Accused in Illegal Pharmacy Business Export Case, Emphasizes Dual Authorization

D. RAMAKRISHNAN Versus INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU

D. RAMAKRISHNAN Versus INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 321 (SC) , 2009 AIR 2404, 2009 (11) SCR 442, 2009 (14) SCC 603, ... Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 regarding illegal internet pharmacy business.
2. Applicability of Rules under the Act for export of drugs without permission from the Competent Authority.
3. Consideration of bail application based on the nature of offenses committed.
4. Analysis of the relationship between the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Issue 1:
The judgment delves into a case involving an illegal internet pharmacy business where the accused, managing a branch, was allegedly involved in exporting drugs without obtaining permission from the Competent Authority. The accused was charged under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The defense argued that the accused might have violated the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, but not the Act in question. The court, however, rejected this contention and dismissed the bail application.

Issue 2:
The defense contended that since the drugs in question were classified as Schedule 'G' and 'H' drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, the export would not fall under the provisions of Rule 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985. The prosecution argued that under Rules 58 and 59, no drug export was permissible without obtaining a permit from the Competent Authority. The court analyzed the relevant rules and provisions to determine the legality of the export activities.

Issue 3:
The defense highlighted that the accused had licenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, with general permission for import and export. However, it was noted that the accused did not apply for or receive authorization to export from the designated authorities under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court considered the severity of the offenses and decided not to grant bail based on the minimum sentence requirement.

Issue 4:
The judgment emphasized the relationship between the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It clarified that the provisions of the latter are additional and not derogatory to the former. The court concluded that the decision in a previous case was not applicable to the present scenario, highlighting the distinct legal requirements under each Act for drug exports. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case promptly and make decisions based on the merits of the evidence presented.