2018 (12) TMI 265 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court reverses bail, directs custody for drug offenses.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail to the accused respondents under Section 389 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the High Court's ... Applications for suspension of sentence - Release of respondents on bail - bulk possession of manufactured drugs without any valid authorization - N.D.P.S Act - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Held that:- The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was enacted to specifically prevent substandard drugs and to maintain high standards of medical treatment - The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was mainly intended to curtail the menace of adulteration of drugs and also of production, manufacture, distribution and sale of spurious and substandard drugs. On the other hand, the N.D.P.S Act is a special law enacted by the Parliament with an object to control and regulate the operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. While the Drugs and Cosmetics Act deals with drugs which are intended to be used for therapeutic or medicinal usage, on the other hand the N.D.P.S Act intends to curb and penalize the usage of drugs which are usedfor intoxication or for getting a stimulant effect. In the present case, the accused respondents were found in bulk possession of manufactured drugs without any valid authorization. The counsel on behalf of the appellant State has extensively stressed that the actions of the accused Respondents amounts to clear violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S Act as it clearly prohibits possession of narcotic substances except for medicinal or scientific purposes - the trial courts after analyzing the evidence placed before them, held the accused Respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt and convicted them for offences committed under Section 21 and Section 22 of the N.D.P.S Act. Section 80 of the N.D.P.S Act, clearly lays down that application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is not barred, and provisions of N.D.P.S. Act can be applicable in addition to that of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The statute further clarifies that the provisions of the N.D.P.S Act are not in derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. In the present case, the accused-respondents had approached the High Court seeking suspension of sentence. However, in granting the aforesaid relief, the High Court erroneously made observations on the merits of the case while the appeals were still pending before it - the gravity of offence alleged against the accused respondents, the order of the High Court directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is clearly unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. The impugned order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:1. Suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C.2. Applicability of the NDPS Act versus the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.3. Merits of the High Court's order granting bail.Detailed Analysis:1. Suspension of Sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C.:The appeals were filed by the State against the High Court's common judgment and order dated 29th January 2018, which allowed applications for suspension of sentence preferred by the accused respondents under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and directed their release on bail while the appeals were pending in the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had granted bail by observing that manufactured drugs, if manufactured by a manufacturer, must be tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and not under the NDPS Act, except those in loose form by way of powder, liquid, etc.2. Applicability of the NDPS Act versus the Drugs and Cosmetics Act:The counsel for the appellant State argued that the NDPS Act does not bar the application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and that the High Court's judgment was in violation of the decision in Inderjeet Singh v. State of Punjab and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande. The NDPS Act is a special law enacted to control and regulate narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, while the Drugs and Cosmetics Act deals with drugs intended for therapeutic or medicinal usage. Section 8 of the NDPS Act prohibits the possession of narcotic substances except for medicinal or scientific purposes, and Sections 21 and 22 provide for punishment for contraventions related to manufactured drugs and psychotropic substances.3. Merits of the High Court's Order Granting Bail:The Supreme Court found that the High Court's conclusion that the accused should be tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act instead of the NDPS Act was not legally valid. Section 80 of the NDPS Act states that the application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is not barred, and the provisions of the NDPS Act can be applied in addition to those of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Supreme Court held that the NDPS Act should not be read in exclusion to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and that it is the prerogative of the State to prosecute the offender in accordance with the law. The High Court had erroneously made observations on the merits of the case while the appeals were still pending, and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail was unsustainable in law.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the authorities to take the accused respondents into custody forthwith. The Court also requested the High Court to expedite the hearings and dispose of the appeals, noting that the observations made were only for deciding these appeals. The appeals were allowed, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.