2019 (5) TMI 706 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for NDPS Act Violation

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 8 read with Section 15 (c) of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the seriousness of commercial quantity ... Smuggling - poppy straw - psychotropic substance or not - defence of the Appellant was that he was legally transporting the goods of the licensee contractor Bishan Singh who had a valid licence issued by the District Excise Officer. A charge was framed against the Appellant under Section 8 read with Section 15 and Section 8 read with Section 26 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT:- Section 8 of the NDPS Act prohibits cultivation of opium poppy and also prohibits, inter alia, production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, and transport of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance - Section 26 deals with a wilful breach of a condition of the licence for which a penalty is not prescribed elsewhere in the NDPS Act and prescribes punishment with imprisonment for a term that may extend to three years or with fine or with both. There was a failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the offence alleged against the Appellant. It is clear from the record that the Appellant admitted the seizure of 10 bags of poppy straw from a truck which was stationed at village Palasiya. The only defence before the Courts below was that the transportation was legal as it was being done on the strength of a valid licence issued by a competent authority. The truck was standing on a road near village Palasiya which is 18 kilometers away from one of the villages which is mentioned in the license and from where the Appellant could have loaded and transported the poppy straw according to the licence - The conclusion of the Trial Court regarding the guilt of the Appellant under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act does not call for any interference. Whether the Appellant has been rightly convicted under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act? - HELD THAT:- As the contravention of license in relation to poppy straw has been dealt with in Section 15, Section 26 of the Act is not attracted and the Courts below are right in holding that the Appellant is liable to conviction under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:1. Conviction under Section 8 read with Section 15 (c) of the NDPS Act.2. Validity of the license and transportation of poppy straw.3. Burden of proof on the prosecution.4. Interpretation of Sections 8, 15, and 26 of the NDPS Act.5. Conviction and sentencing under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act.Issue 1: Conviction under Section 8 read with Section 15 (c) of the NDPS Act:The Trial Court framed issues related to the nature of the seized material, the violation of NDPS Act provisions, and whether the accused committed any offense. The defense argued that the breach of license conditions would attract Section 26, not Section 15. However, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 8 read with Section 15 (c) based on evidence and interpretation of the NDPS Act. The High Court upheld this conviction, finding no fault with the Trial Court's decision.Issue 2: Validity of the license and transportation of poppy straw:The Appellant claimed legal transportation based on a license, stating rain prevented access to the specified villages for loading. The defense contended that even if a violation occurred, it should be under Section 26, not Section 15. However, the Trial Court found the Appellant guilty under Section 8 read with Section 15, emphasizing the commercial quantity of poppy straw seized and the lack of evidence supporting the Appellant's claims.Issue 3: Burden of proof on the prosecution:The defense argued that the burden of proof was shifted to the Appellant unfairly. However, the prosecution demonstrated the seizure of poppy straw, and the Appellant's defense of a valid license required him to prove lawful purchase sources. The Trial Court and High Court found the prosecution's case sufficient, upholding the conviction.Issue 4: Interpretation of Sections 8, 15, and 26 of the NDPS Act:Sections 8, 15, and 26 of the NDPS Act were crucial in determining the appropriate charges and penalties. Section 15 deals with contraventions related to poppy straw, imposing strict penalties for commercial quantity violations. Section 26 addresses breaches of license conditions not covered elsewhere, with lesser penalties. The Courts applied these sections to convict the Appellant under Section 8 read with Section 15.Issue 5: Conviction and sentencing under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act:The Appellant's conviction under Section 8 read with Section 15 (c) was based on the evidence of poppy straw seizure and the failure to prove lawful purchase sources. The Courts rejected the defense's arguments regarding license violations falling under Section 26, emphasizing the severity of the offense under Section 15 for commercial quantity contraventions. Despite the Appellant's partial sentence served and bail status, the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years under Section 15 (c) mandated no reduction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 8 read with Section 15 (c) of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the seriousness of commercial quantity violations and the legal interpretation of relevant sections. The Appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence as per the law.