AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addressed to Shri Syed Ali, 101, New Street, Mannady. The box found to contain 33 packets, each packet contained 5 pads and each pad contained 6 strips. The packets serialed as 33 and 33 were found to contain additional 5 and 4 strips respectively. Hence 5 x 6 x 10 x 33 = 9990 tablets of ALPRAZOLAM IP TRIKA - I of 1 Mg Manufactured by Unichem Laboratories Sikkim. The officers had seized in the presence of witnesses under Mahazar. Further prosecution case is that on 28.11.2016 at M/s. Triway CFS, No.149, Ilayanchavadi, New Nappalayam, Ponneri High Road, Chennai had seized 23.900 kgs of "pseudo Ephedrine" in 48 polythene packages in a cargo covered under the shipping bill No.2418014 dated 24.11.2016 in the name of M.M.Exports concealed in 6 Bales. The officers drew mahazar in the presence of witnesses and in the presence of one V.Packiakumar a Freelance Freight Forwarder, later he was arranged as 43 in this case. The officers had issued summons to all the 3 petitioners on 29.11.2016 to appear before them on the same day at 7.00 hours. The statements under section 67 of NDPS Act were recorded from the Petitioners, later they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. 3. The le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai-600 017 reported in 2017 (2) MWN (Cr.) 41 (iii). Ouseph Alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala reported in (2004) 4 SCC 446. (iv). E.Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau reported in (2008) 5 SCC 161. (v). Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 4 SCC 441. (vi). Mohd. Sahabuddin and another v. State of Assam reported in (2012) 13 SCC 491. (vii). M.Veludurain v. The State, rep. By The Superintendent of Customs, Special Narcotic Cell, Nagercoil, O.R.No.1 of 2001 reported in 2012 -1- L.W. (Crl.) 70. (viii). John Paul v. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and another, Order passed in W.P.No.28715 of 2015. (ix). Sadiq Basha v. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and another, Order passed in W.P.No.28702 of 2015. (x). Superintendent of Customs, Central Intelligence Unit, Trichy. (O.R.No.1 of 2016) v. L.Abuthahir, Order passed in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14252 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6652 of 2016. (xi).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.1421 of 2016, the Respondent had filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order passed in the above Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2016 was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further another Learned Judge of this Hon'ble Court at Madurai Bench of Madras High Court vide order dated 23.08.2016 have cancelled the bail granted by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court for E.C. and NDPS Act cases), Pudukkottai, in Crl.O.P.No.1882 of 2016 dated 05.08.2016, on the basis of total weight of the tablet and not on percentage. And other judgment reported in 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl) 482 disagreed with the judgment passed in Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2016 and the judgment reported in 2011 (4) SCC 441 only weight of the tables has to be taken and not percentage of the contraband to be taken and hold that the seized contraband is commercial quantity. The SLP merged with Criminal Appeal No.722 of 2017 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the question of law involved is identical and the matter was referred to larger bench and the same is pending before the larger bench. Further Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2016 filed only for amending the charge and not for bail. Further the seize....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1985, defines psychotropic substance thus: "Psychotropic substance" means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material included in the list of psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule. 13. This Court would begin by informing that the opening words 'any mixture or' in Item No.239 of the table are redundant since Section 2(xxiii) of the Act which defines 'preparation' places preparation in two distinct slots. The preparation in relation to a Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance means (1) any one or more such drugs or substances in dosage form, or (2) any solution or mixture in whatsoever physical state containing one or more such drugs or substances. 14. Section 18 of the NDPS Act, 1985 provides for graded punishment for any contravention of the provisions of the Act, categorizing the contravention into (i) small quantity, (ii) intermediary quantity and (iii) commercial quantity. The expression 'small quantity' is defined in Section 2(xxiiia) of the Act, to mean any quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the Central Government by Notification in the official....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the substances covered by the Notification. The note under the table to the Notification dated 19.10.2011 originally contained only three points. Those three points read as follows: "Note: (1) The small quantity and the commercial quantity given against the respective drugs listed above apply to isomers, within specific chemical designation, the esters, ethers and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers; whenever existence of such substance is possible. (2) The quantities shown against the respective drugs listed above also apply to the preparations of the drug and the preparations of substances of note 1 above. (3) "Small Quantity" and "Commercial Quantity" with respect to cultivation of opium poppy is not specified separately as the offence in this regard is covered under clause (c) of Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985." 19. Therefore, in the light of the existing Notes in the table under Notification dated 19.10.2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider in Ouseph Alias Thankachan vs. State of Kerala- (2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1303), what was a 'small qua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue and in his order dated 14.03.2017 passed in Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2016 as follows: "The admitted prosecution case is that petitioners were found in possession of 18415 Zolfresh tablets. A reference to Current Index of Medical Specialty (CIMS) informs that Zolfresh is one amongst several tablets wherein tablets with content of Zolpedim in 5 mg or 10 mgs are sold. In the instant case, what has been seized are 18415 Zolfresh tablets containing 10 mg Zolpedim each. Therefore, tablets seized from petitioners are in dosage form. When so, the notification in S.O.2941(E) dated 18.11.2009 would require a determination of small or commercial quantity on the basis of the content of the psychotropic substance of that particular drug (Zolpidem) in dosage form. When so done it will be seen that petitioners were in possession of 184.15 gms which is below the commercial quantity of 250 gms. 23. This Court finds support for its reasoning in the decision of Apex Court in Md.Sahabuddin and another v. State of Assam [Crl.A.No.1602 of 2012] relied upon by learned Special Public Prosecutor. In holding against the accused and finding them in possession of commercial quantity of codei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application, for such release and / or where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These limitations on ground of bail specified in the section are in addition to the limitations prescribed under the Cr.P.C. 24. It is also necessary to extract Section 22 of the Act which reads as follows: "22.Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances. - Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any psychotropic substance shall be punishable, - (a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quan....