1991 (1) TMI 243 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Limits High Court's Bail Power under NDPS Act | Non-obstante Clause Explained

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Versus KISHAN LAL

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Versus KISHAN LAL - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 328 (SC), 1991 AIR 558, 1991 (1) SCR 139, 1991 (1) SCC 705, 1991 (1) JT 258, 1991 (1) SCALE ... Issues Involved:1. Applicability of restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act to the High Court's power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.2. Interpretation of non-obstante clauses in special enactments vis-`a-vis general provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Comparison of analogous provisions in other special enactments and their impact on the High Court's jurisdiction to grant bail.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Restrictions Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act to the High Court's Power to Grant Bail Under Section 439 Cr.P.C.The primary issue in these appeals was whether the limitations placed on the Special Court under Section 37 of the NDPS Act also apply to the High Court when exercising its powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The High Court had previously held that these limitations did not apply to it. However, the Supreme Court overturned this view, stating that the non-obstante clause in Section 37 of the NDPS Act explicitly limits the High Court's powers to grant bail. The Court emphasized that 'the non-obstante clause with which the Section starts should be given its due meaning and clearly it is intended to restrict the powers to grant bail.'2. Interpretation of Non-Obstante Clauses in Special Enactments Vis-`a-Vis General Provisions in the Code of Criminal ProcedureThe Supreme Court noted that the NDPS Act is a special enactment designed to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The Court cited Section 4(2) Cr.P.C., which states that all offences under any other law shall be dealt with according to the provisions of the Cr.P.C., but subject to any special enactment. The Court concluded that 'the power to grant bail under any of the provisions of Cr.P.C. should necessarily be subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.' This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to impose stringent conditions for bail in narcotics cases.3. Comparison of Analogous Provisions in Other Special Enactments and Their Impact on the High Court's Jurisdiction to Grant BailThe judgment also compared Section 37 of the NDPS Act with similar provisions in other special enactments, such as Rule 184 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971, and Sections 20(8) and 20(9) of the TADA Act. In these cases, the Supreme Court had previously held that the non-obstante clauses in these special enactments limit the High Court's powers to grant bail. The Court cited its decision in Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon and Others v. State of Gujarat, which dealt with the TADA Act, to support its conclusion. The Court in Usmanbhai's case had held that 'the Act being a special Act must prevail in respect of the jurisdiction and power of the High Court to entertain an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code.'Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's powers to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are subject to the limitations contained in the amended Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The restrictions placed on the powers of the Court under Section 37 are applicable to the High Court as well. Consequently, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision and clarified that the High Court does not have unfettered powers to grant bail in cases under the NDPS Act.Final Orders:The two accused respondents in these appeals, who had been on bail pursuant to the High Court's order, were allowed to continue on bail. The Supreme Court did not remit the matters to the High Court for fresh consideration and disposed of the appeals with the above clarification of law.