You are on page 1of 58

Free Text Wise

TEXTWISE QUERY

Enter Text
Narcotics

From Date : To Date :


Day Month Year Day Month Year
01 January 2002 15 February 2004

Submit Reset

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/srgqry.asp2/18/2004 6:15:43 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


JUDGMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM

Searched for : "NARCOTICS" Page 1 of 4


1. Appeal (crl.) 1139 of 2000
State Through Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kulwant
11/02/2003
Singh Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau
Coram: N. SANTOSH HEDGE , B.P. SINGH
2. Appeal (civil) 2399 of 1986
G. Bassi Reddy Vs. International Crops Research Instt. &
14/02/2003
Anr.
Coram: RUMA PAL , B.N. SRIKRISHNA
3. Appeal (civil) 4025 of 2003
Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd. 07/05/2003
Coram: N.Santosh Hegde , Ashok Bhan , B.P.Singh.
4. Appeal (civil) 4025 of 2003
Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd. 07/05/2003
Coram: N.Santosh Hegde , Ashok Bhan , B.P.Singh.
5. Appeal (crl.) 1139 of 2000
State Through Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kulwant Singh 11/02/2003
Coram: N. SANTOSH HEDGE , B.P. SINGH.
HOME Next Last

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp2/18/2004 6:16:08 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=18891&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=18891&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:16:15 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=18891&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1139 of 2000
Appeal (crl.) 197 of 2003

PETITIONER:
State Through Narcotics Control Bureau
Sayed Abdul Ala

RESPONDENT:
Kulwant Singh
Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/02/2003

BENCH:
N. SANTOSH HEDGE & B.P. SINGH

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

(Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3816 of 2002)

B.P. Singh, J.

Special Leave granted in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3816 of 2002.

In both these appeals common questions arise for


consideration and hence they have been heard together and are
being disposed of by this judgment and order.

Criminal Appeal No. 1139 of 2000 has been preferred by the


State through the Narcotics Control Bureau and is directed against
the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
dated December 13, 2000 in Criminal Appeal No.248 of 1997.
The High Court by its impugned judgment and order quashed the
order of conviction and sentence of the respondent passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1996
dated 24th May, 1997 and acquitted the respondent of the charge
levelled against him under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act').It was held that the complaint filed by an authorized officer
of the Narcotics Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as 'the
NCB') was without authority of law inasmuch as the officers of the
NCB could not be authorized to effect search, seizure and arrest
under the Act, the NCB not being a department of the Government.
Consequently all actions taken by them were illegal since the
proceedings taken in respect of the offences under the Act were by
officers not legally empowered to do so.

In Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3816 of


2002 the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore by its judgment
and order dated 30th November, 2001 in Criminal Petition No.669
of 2001 negatived a similar contention urged on behalf of the
appellant in that appeal and held that the officers of the NCB could
be and were duly empowered under the Act to conduct
investigation including the power of search, seizure and arrest. It
held that the NCB was not a statutory authority and was indeed a
department of the Government. Consequently its officers could be
authorised under the Act to perform these functions. Accordingly
the Criminal Petition filed by the appellant herein under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for (2quashing
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=18891&ctext="Narcotics" the6:16:15 AM
of 3)2/18/2004
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=18891&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=18891&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:16:15 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=18906&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=18906&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:16:27 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=18906&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2399 of 1986

PETITIONER:
G. Bassi Reddy

RESPONDENT:
International Crops Research Instt. & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/2003

BENCH:
RUMA PAL & B.N. SRIKRISHNA

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

With CA Nos. 5800/99, 2400-2411/96,


2858/96, 2393-2398/96

RUMA PAL, J.

The appellants were employees of the respondent No.1


(ICRISAT). Their services were terminated. They filed writ
petitions before the High Court of Karnataka against ICRISAT
and the Union of India. The writ petitions were dismissed. The
first writ petition so dismissed was W.P.No.2730/1981 ( K.S.
Mathew v. ICRISAT) . A second group of writ petitions was
dismissed on 30th June 1988. The dismissals are the subject
matter of these appeals. Both the Division Benches held that
ICRISAT was an international organisation and was immune
from being sued because of a Notification issued in 1972 under
the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act,1947 and
that a writ under Article 226 could not be issued to ICRISAT.
What or who is ICRISAT? Was the High Court right in
holding that it was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under
Article 226?
ICRISAT was proposed to be set up as a non-profit
research and training centre by the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). The CGIAR is an
informal association of about 50 government and non-
governmental bodies and is co-sponsored by the Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, (FAO), the
United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United
Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Bank.The
members of the CGIAR at the relevant time werethe African
Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, Belgium,
Canada, Denmark, the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United States, Ford Foundation, France, Germany, the
Inter-American Development Bank, the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, the International
Development Research Centre, Japan, Kellogg Foundation,
Netherlands, Norway, Rockefeller Foundation, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom, United Nations Development
Programme and the United States of America. In addition there
were representatives from the five major developing regions of
the world, namely, Africa, Asia and the Far East, Latin America,
the Middle East, Southern and Eastern Europe.
The object of setting up ICRISAT was to help developing
countries in semi-arid tropics to alleviate rural
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=18906&ctext="Narcotics" poverty and
(2 of 3)2/18/2004 6:16:27 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=18906&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=18906&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:16:27 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19035&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19035&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:16:37 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19035&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4589 of 1995
Appeal (civil) 138 of 1989

PETITIONER:
M/s Sunny Industries Private Ltd.

RESPONDENT:
Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/03/2003

BENCH:
M.B. SHAH & ARUN KUMAR.

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.

It is the contention of the appellant Company that it is


engaged in manufacture inter alia of Ad-vitamin Massage Oil forte
(Patent or Proprietary Medicines) since 1949 on the basis of sanction
accorded by the Drug Control Authorities. This preparation was
brought and classified for levy of duty of Excise with effect from
1.3.1961 falling under Tariff Item No.14-E of the First Schedule to the
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act").By order dated 26.12.1985, the Assistant Collector classified
the said product under Tariff Item No.14-F (Heading 3304.00)
excisable as cosmetics goods. Collector (Appeals) also affirmed the
order of the Assistant Collector by order dated 29.4.1986. Against
that order, appellant preferred appeal No.E-2226/86-C before the
Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal"
for short) which was also dismissed by order dated 26.10.1988.
Aggrieved thereby, appellant filed Civil Appeal No.138 of 1989
before this Court.

In the meanwhile, the Central Excise Tariff was reconstituted


with effect from 28.2.1986 as follows: -
(i)14E is equivalent to T.I. 30.03 of the Central Excise
Tariff Act, 1985. (Medicaments)
(ii)14-F is equivalent to Tariff Item No. 33.04 of the Central
Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (Cosmetic Goods)

On re-construction of the tariff as aforesaid, the appellant


submitted its classification list No. 2/86 dated 3.3.1986 claiming
classification of its product under heading 3003.19 as patent and
proprietary medicine. Upon receipt thereof, the Assistant Collector
issued notice to the appellant to show cause as to why the product
should not be classified under sub-heading No.3304.00 in view of the
change of Tariff description after 1985 budget. Being not satisfied
with reply of the appellant, the Assistant Collector modified the
classification of the said product from Chapter 30 to Chapter 33 and
approved classification heading 3304.00. Appeals filed by the
appellants before the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal were also
dismissed.

The Tribunal observed that the vitamins are added in several


cosmetic preparations, skin care lotion etc. but mere addition of
vitamins would not render the product as a drug. The product has to
be judged entirely in the light of the words (2inoftariff
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19035&ctext="Narcotics" and not
3)2/18/2004 with
6:16:37 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19035&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19035&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:16:37 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19065&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19065&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:16:57 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19065&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1139 of 2000
Appeal (crl.) 197 of 2003

PETITIONER:
State Through Narcotics Control Bureau
Sayed Abdul Ala

RESPONDENT:
Kulwant Singh
Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/02/2003

BENCH:
N. SANTOSH HEDGE & B.P. SINGH.

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

WITH

(Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3816 of 2002)

B.P. Singh, J.

Special Leave granted in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3816 of 2002.

In both these appeals common questions arise for


consideration and hence they have been heard together and are
being disposed of by this judgment and order.
Criminal Appeal No. 1139 of 2000 has been preferred by the
State through the Narcotics Control Bureau and is directed against
the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
dated December 13, 2000 in Criminal Appeal No.248 of 1997.
The High Court by its impugned judgment and order quashed the
order of conviction and sentence of the respondent passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1996
dated 24th May, 1997 and acquitted the respondent of the charge
levelled against him under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act').It was held that the complaint filed by an authorized officer
of the Narcotics Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as 'the
NCB') was without authority of law inasmuch as the officers of the
NCB could not be authorized to effect search, seizure and arrest
under the Act, the NCB not being a department of the Government.
Consequently all actions taken by them were illegal since the
proceedings taken in respect of the offences under the Act were by
officers not legally empowered to do so.

In Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3816 of


2002 the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore by its judgment
and order dated 30th November, 2001 in Criminal Petition No.669
of 2001 negatived a similar contention urged on behalf of the
appellant in that appeal and held that the officers of the NCB could
be and were duly empowered under the Act to conduct
investigation including the power of search, seizure and arrest. It
held that the NCB was not a statutory authority and was indeed a
department of the Government. Consequently its officers could be
authorised under the Act to perform these (2functions.
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19065&ctext="Narcotics" of 3)2/18/2004Accordingly
6:16:57 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19065&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19065&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:16:57 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=2&mypagesize=5&s...e%3Dscordermain%2Efilename&mcount=18&coun=6&ctext="Narcotics"&p=N

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


JUDGMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
Searched for : "NARCOTICS" Page 2 of 4
6. Appeal (crl.) 1308 of 2002
Jameel Ahmed & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan 30/04/2003
Coram: N. Santosh Hegde , B.P. Singh.
7. Appeal (crl.) of 725
State, through Special Cell, New Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu
09/05/2003
@ Afshan Guru & Ors.
Coram: S.N. Variava , Brijesh Kumar.
8. Appeal (crl.) 1042 of 2001
Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai Vs. Abdullah Hussain
30/07/2003
Juma & Anr.
Coram: N.Santosh Hegde , B.P.Singh.
9. Appeal (civil) 2769 of 1999
Union of India Vs. R. Padmanabhan 13/08/2003
Coram: S. RAJENDRA BABU , DORAISWAMY RAJU.
10. Appeal (crl.) 786 of 2002
Madan Lal and Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 19/08/2003
Coram: DORAISWAMY RAJU , ARIJIT PASAYAT.
HOME First Previous Next Last

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=2&mypag...ermain%2Efilename&mcount=18&coun=6&ctext="Narcotics"&p=N2/18/2004 6:17:07 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19085&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19085&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:17:33 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19085&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 13082002
of 4

PETITIONER:
Jameel Ahmed & Anr.

RESPONDENT:
State of Rajasthan

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/04/2003

BENCH:
N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh.

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

(With Crl.A. Nos.215/2003 & 1361/2002)

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

All these appeals arise out of a common judgment of the


Designated Judge at Ajmer, Rajasthan, made in TADA Special
Case No.8 of 1992. In the said case, the appellants herein along
with some other accused were charged by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIC.II, New Delhi for offences
under Sections 3(3) and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
TADA Act'), Section 120-B IPC; and Sections 5 and 6 of the
Expolsive Substances Act and Section 9B and 9C of the
Explosives Act. After trial the Designated Court held the
appellants guilty of offences punishable under Section 120B
IPC, Sections 3(3) and 6(1) of the TADA, Section 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act read with Section 120B of the IPC
and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. Learned Judge
also held A-5 guilty of offences punishable under Sections 9-B
(i)(b) and 9-C of the Explosives Act. Based on the said
conviction, he imposed a sentence of 5 years' RI with a fine of
Rs.1,000 on each count, on these appellants, and in default in
the payment of fine, to undergo a further RI for 6 months on
each count, on each of them. He also sentenced the appellants
for offences punishable under Section 3(3) and 6(1) of the
TADA and imposed a sentence of 5 years' RI with a fine of
Rs.1,000 on each of them, in default to undergo RI for 6
months. He further sentenced the appellants for an offence
punishable under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act
read with section 120B IPC, and Section 6 of the Explosive
Substances Act and imposed a sentence of 5 years' RI with a
fine of Rs.500/- on each count on each of them; in default to
undergo RI for 3 months. Nextly, he held A-5 guilty of offences
punishable under Sections 9-B(i)(b) and 9-C of the Explosives
Act, 1884 and sentenced him to undergo RI for 2 years with a
fine of Rs.500/-; in default to undergo further RI for 3 months.
He directed all the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

Prosecution case involving these appellants, stated


briefly, is as follows :

On 20.12.1990, a Police party headed by Sukhpal


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19085&ctext="Narcotics" Singh,
(2 of 3)2/18/2004 6:17:33 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19085&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19085&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:17:33 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19113&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19113&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:17:39 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19113&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) of 725-

PETITIONER:
State, through Special Cell, New Delhi

RESPONDENT:
Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/05/2003

BENCH:
S.N. Variava &Brijesh Kumar.

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 577-580 of 2003)

S. N. VARIAVA, J.

Leave granted.

Heard parties.

Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

On 13th December, 2001 five terrorist attacked the Parliament of India. After an
encounter, with the security forces, the five terrorists were shot dead. A F.I.R was lodged
by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Parliament Street. A case under Sections
120,120B, 121, 121A, 122, 124, 186, 332, 353, 302, and 307 IPC, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of
the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered.
Investigation was then initiated. From the slain terrorists apart from arms, ammunitions
and other items, three mobile phones, 6 sim cards and slips of paper containing five
mobile telephone numbers and other two telephone numbers were recovered. It is the
case of the prosecution that due to urgency authorisation to intercept was granted by the
Joint Director of Intelligence Bureau, who was associated with the investigation. It is the
case of the prosecution that this authorisation was as per the provisions of the Telegraph
Act i.e. Section 5 of the Telegraph Act read with Rule 419A. It is the case of the
prosecution that the interception disclosed the involvement of the respondents in the
conspiracy to attack the Parliament of India. It is the case of the prosecution that as a
result of the interceptions and the interrogation of the respondents, it was disclosed that
the slain terrorists and the respondents were in touch with one Ghazi Baba, who is a
Pakistani national and the supreme commander of Jaish-e-Mohammed which is a notified
and banned terrorist organisation under Section 18 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002
and the schedule thereto (the Prevention of Terrorism Act will hereinafter be referred to
as POTA). It is the case of the prosecution that after the investigating officers had, in the
course of the investigation, collected the relevant and cogent material it was found that a
case under POTA was made out. It is the case of the prosecution that relevant sections of
POTA were added on 19th December, 2001 only after it was ensured that offences under
POTA were made out. It is the case of the prosecution that this was done in view of the
well established law laid down by this Court, in the context of TADA, that there must be
due application of mind and cogent material before the special rigorous regime is added.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 31st December, 2001 and 19th January, 2002 the
Home Secretary approved the interception.
It is the case of the prosecution that after the investigation was completed the
charge-sheet was filed on 14th May, 2002. It is the case of the prosecution that copy of the
transcripts of the intercepted conversation were given to the accused along with the
charge sheet. On 8th July, 2002 the respondents applied before the Special Judge seeking
a direction that the intercepted conversation
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19113&ctext="Narcotics" (2 ofnot be used
3)2/18/2004 as evidence
6:17:39 AM in the trial for
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19113&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19113&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:17:39 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19184&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19184&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:17:41 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19184&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1042 of 2001

PETITIONER:
Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai

RESPONDENT:
Vs.

Abdullah Hussain Juma & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/07/2003

BENCH:
N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh.

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

This appeal arises from the judgment of High Court of

Judicature at Bombay made in Criminal Appeal No.213 of 1997

dated 4.12.2000 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal of the

respondent filed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge,

N.D.P.S., Greater Bombay, made in NDPS Special Case No.95 of

1994.

Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as

follows :

On receipt of certain secret information that some passengers

travelling by the Ethopian Airlines on 8.3.1994 were suspected to be

carrying some contraband with them, the concerned Customs

Officers detained 9 suspects after they had completed their

immigration formalities. On a personal search made by the said

Officers as also a search of the checked-in baggages of the said

passengers at the airport, nothing incriminating


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19184&ctext="Narcotics" was found.
(2 of 3)2/18/2004 6:17:41Since
AM the
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19184&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19184&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:17:41 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19283&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19283&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:17:45 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19283&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2769 of 1999

PETITIONER:
Union of India

RESPONDENT:
Vs.

R. Padmanabhan

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/08/2003

BENCH:
S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU.

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT

RAJENDRA BABU, J.:

The appellant, Union of India, which lost before the learned Single

Judge in O.P. No.12775 of 1991 and before the Division Bench of the Kerala

High Court in W.A. No.1077 of 1994, has filed this appeal.

The respondent, an IPS Officer, who, at the relevant point of time, was

serving as the DIG of Police, Northern Range, Kozhikode, which comprised in

his area of operation Revenue Districts of Kasargode, Cannanore, Kozhikode,

Palakkad, Wayanad and Malappuram. The appellant-Government not only

authorized the State Police authorities to effect seizure and investigation of

cases under the Central Excise & Salt Act, Customs Act, Gold Control Order

and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, to prevent smuggling of gold and other

articles through the coastal areas of Kerala, as well as in other parts of the

country but with a view to create an incentive generally in the matter of

detection of such violations, proposed to grant awards to those responsible to

assist the Government in the same by being informants as well as

Government servants and issued Guidelines


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19283&ctext="Narcotics" (2 oftherefor
3)2/18/2004in the Notification
6:17:45 AM dated
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19283&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19283&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:17:45 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19299&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19299&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:17:48 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19299&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 786 of 2002

PETITIONER:
Madan Lal and Anr.

RESPONDENT:
Vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/08/2003

BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 788/2002 AND 905/2003

ARIJIT PASAYAT,J

Since these three appeals involve identical issues they are

disposed of by this common judgment.

The appellants and one other person faced trial for alleged

commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act').

All the five accused were found guilty of the alleged offence and

all of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term

of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh with a default stipulation

of a further rigorous imprisonment of 3 months in case of default to

pay the fine.


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19299&ctext="Narcotics" (2 of 3)2/18/2004 6:17:48 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19299&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19299&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:17:48 AM


Supreme Court Judgment Information System

Contact Address
Courts Informatics Devision, National Informatics Centre, A- Block, C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003, INDIA.

Any suggestions or comments are welcome to Courts info division

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/chejudis.asp2/18/2004 6:17:59 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=1&mypagesize=5&sq...rdermain%2Efilename&mcount=18&coun=1&ctitle=&ctext="Narcotics"&p=P

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


JUDGMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
Searched for : "NARCOTICS" Page 1 of 4
1. Appeal (crl.) 1139 of 2000
State Through Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kulwant
11/02/2003
Singh Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau
Coram: N. SANTOSH HEDGE , B.P. SINGH
2. Appeal (civil) 2399 of 1986
G. Bassi Reddy Vs. International Crops Research Instt. &
14/02/2003
Anr.
Coram: RUMA PAL , B.N. SRIKRISHNA
3. Appeal (civil) 4025 of 2003
Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd. 07/05/2003
Coram: N.Santosh Hegde , Ashok Bhan , B.P.Singh.
4. Appeal (civil) 4025 of 2003
Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd. 07/05/2003
Coram: N.Santosh Hegde , Ashok Bhan , B.P.Singh.
5. Appeal (crl.) 1139 of 2000
State Through Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kulwant Singh 11/02/2003
Coram: N. SANTOSH HEDGE , B.P. SINGH.
HOME Next Last

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=1&mypage...2Efilename&mcount=18&coun=1&ctitle=&ctext="Narcotics"&p=P2/18/2004 6:18:02 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=3&mypagesize=5&s...%3Dscordermain%2Efilename&mcount=18&coun=11&ctext="Narcotics"&p=N

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


JUDGMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
Searched for : "NARCOTICS" Page 3 of 4
11. Appeal (civil) 8161-8162 of 2003
Union of India and Anr. Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and
07/10/2003
Anr.
Coram: Ruma Pal , B.N. Srikrishna.
12. Appeal (crl.) 103 of 2003
Saikou Jabbi Vs. State of Maharashtra 03/12/2003
Coram: DORAISWAMY RAJU , ARIJIT PASAYAT.
13. Appeal (crl.) 1468 of 2003
Union of India Vs. Kuldeep Singh 08/12/2003
Coram: DORAISWAMY RAJU , ARIJIT PASAYAT.
14. Appeal (civil) 3017 of 1997
State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. M/s. Devans Modern
20/11/2003
Brewaries and Anr.
Coram: B.N. Agrawal
15. Appeal (civil) 414 of 2000
The State of Goa & Anr. Vs. M/s. Colfax Laboratories Ltd.
29/10/2003
& Anr.
Coram: S. Rajendra Babu , G.P. Mathur
HOME First Previous Next Last

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=3&mypag...rmain%2Efilename&mcount=18&coun=11&ctext="Narcotics"&p=N2/18/2004 6:18:06 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=4&mypagesize=5&sq...dermain%2Efilename&mcount=18&coun=11&ctitle=&ctext="Narcotics"&p=L

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


JUDGMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
Searched for : "NARCOTICS" Page 4 of 4
16. Appeal (crl.) 633 of 2003
Rajendra and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 17/12/2003
Coram: DORAISWAMY RAJU , ARIJIT PASAYAT
17. Appeal (crl.) 778 of 1997
State of Punjab Vs. Bhag Singh 16/12/2003
Coram: DORAISWAMY RAJU , ARIJIT PASAYAT
18. Appeal (crl.) 53 of 2003
Smt. Krishna Kanwar @ Thakuraeen Vs. State of
27/01/2004
Rajasthan
Coram: DORAISWAMY RAJU , ARIJIT PASAYAT.
HOME First Previous

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=4&mypage...Efilename&mcount=18&coun=11&ctitle=&ctext="Narcotics"&p=L2/18/2004 6:18:08 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19427&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19427&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:18:41 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19427&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 8161-8162 of 2003
Appeal (civil) 8163-8164 of 2003

PETITIONER:
Union of India and Anr.

RESPONDENT:
Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/10/2003

BENCH:
Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna.

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.20192-20193 of 2002)


(@ S.L..P.(C) Nos. 22521-22522 of 2002)

SRIKRISHNA,J.

Leave granted.

These appeals by special leave arise out of the judgment of


the Division Bench of Delhi High Court allowing Civil Writ
Petition (PIL)No.5646/2000 and Civil Writ Petition No.2802/2000.
The High Court by its judgment impugned in these appeals
quashed and set aside the circular No.789 dated 13.4.2000 issued
by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as
"CBDT") by which certain instructions were given to the Chief
Commissioners/Directors General of Income-tax with regard to the
assessment of cases in which the Indo - Mauritius Double
Taxation Avoidance Convention, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as
'DTAC') applied. The High Court accepted the contention before
it that the said circular is ultra vires the provisions of Section 90
and Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act') and also otherwise bad and illegal.

It would be necessary to recount some salient facts in order


to appreciate the plethora of legal contentions urged.

FACTS
A: The Agreement

The Government of India has entered into various


Agreements (also called Conventions or Treaties) with
Governments of different countries for the avoidance of double
taxation and for prevention of fiscal evasion. One such Agreement
between the Government of India and the Government of
Mauritius dated April 1, 1983, is the subject matter of the present
controversy. The purpose of this Agreement, as specified in the
preamble, is "avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of
fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital gains
and for the encouragement of mutual trade and investment". After
completing the formalities prescribed in Article 28 this agreement
was brought into force by a Notification dated 6.12.1983 issued in
exercise of the powers of the Government of India under Section
90 of the Act read with Section 24A of the Companies (Profits)
Surtax Act, 1964. As stated in the Agreement, its purpose is to
avoid double taxation and to encourage mutual
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19427&ctext="Narcotics" trade and
(2 of 3)2/18/2004 6:18:41 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19427&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19427&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:18:41 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25591&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25591&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:18:44 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25591&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 103 of 2003

PETITIONER:
Saikou Jabbi

RESPONDENT:
State of Maharashtra

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/12/2003

BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

The appellant, a Gambian national, was apprehended around mid-


night of 17.9.1993 at the Sahara Airport Bombay for carrying heroin in
his baggage in ET Flight No. 661. Ashok Thaker, (PW-1) an intelligence
officer attached to the Narcotic Bureau screened the baggage and seizure
was made of the heroine weighing about 1 kg. which was concealed in a
suitcase. After recording the statement accused was taken for alleged
contravention of various provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 'Act') and also under
the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Customs Act'). He was charged for
offence punishable under Sections 21, 23, 28 and 29 of the Act and also
Sections 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act. Accused pleaded innocence.
He was tried in the Court of Special Judge for Greater Bombay who found
that there was non-compliance with the requirement of Section 50 of the
Act as he was not made aware of his right to be searched before a
gazetted officer or a Magistrate before the search was conducted. It was
also held that the requirement of Section 42(2) to submit the gist of
information to higher officer immediately was also not established. The
accused was acquitted of all the charges. The prosecuting agency filed
an appeal before the Bombay High Court which by the impugned judgment
held the accused guilty for offences punishable under Section 8(c) read
with Section 21 of the Act for which custodial sentence of 10 years
imprisonment and fine of Rs.1 lakh for default stipulation was awarded.
Further for offence relatable to Sections 28 read with Section 23 of the
Act a similar sentence was awarded. Though he was convicted under
Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, but no separate sentence was
awarded. The High Court held that Section 50 was not attracted to the
facts of the case. Similarly, it was held that there was compliance of
requirements of Section 42(2) of the Act.

Said judgment of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the


appellant submitted that the trial Court was justified in holding that
the accusations were not established against the appellant.
Unfortunately, the High Court had on an erroneous reading of Sections 42
and 50 came to hold that there was compliance with the requirements of
the said provisions. The seized articles were sent for chemical
examination on 23.9.1993. This was in violation of Section 55 of the
Act.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the High


Court was justified in its conclusion and correct interpretation of the
relevant provisions of the Act have been made. Further, the plea that
there was any prejudice to the accused on(2account
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25591&ctext="Narcotics" of delayed
of 3)2/18/2004 6:18:44 AMdispatch
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25591&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25591&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:18:44 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25592&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25592&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:18:48 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25592&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1468 of 2003
Special Leave Petition (crl.) 2827 of 2003

PETITIONER:
Union of India

RESPONDENT:
Kuldeep Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/12/2003

BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT,J

Leave granted.

The Union of India questions legality, desirability and


proprietary of reducing sentence after conviction as done by the
Rajasthan High Court in the impugned judgment. The respondent was found
guilty of offences punishable under Section 9A/25A and 9A/25A read with
Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(in short the 'Act').

Factual background which led to trial of the respondent is


essentially as follows:

Shri R.P. Sharma, Director of Narcotics Control Bureau, Jodhpur


received a confidential information on telephone in the night dated
12.12.1995 about illicit transactions of Acitic N Hydrite and on the
basis of it he constituted a team of officers of the Department vide
order Exb.P-1 and the team along with the Director, Narcotics Control
Bureau, Jodhpur started for Sri Ganganagar at 21.00 hours. Dr. R.P.
Sharma informed officers of the team that one thousand litre Acitic N
Hydride has been reportedly concealed in a Kachha Kotha (unripe-room)
constructed in the field situated on the way of village Bhagasar Aborlya
and village Chak Maharajka or in the nearby area. B.S. Vasistha (PW-1)
was appointed as the seizing officer and he was ordered to execute the
proceedings. In compliance thereof he reached on the site on 13.12.95 at
about 6.30 hours, called independent witnesses Tiku Ram and Sakata Ram
and made inquiries about the Kotha constructed in the field situated on
the way of Bhagasar and Chak Maharajka village. He came to know that the
Kotha belongs to accused-respondent Kuldeep Singh and the agriculture
field has been given to one Fateh Mohammad for cultivation, whereupon
Fateh Mohammad was called and interrogated. He informed that the Kotha
belongs to accused-Kuldeep Singh. Thereupon Kuldeep Singh was called
from his house and the closed Kotha was opened by the accused wherein
forty four plastic containers kept under the chaff of wheat were found.
Out of them 43 containers were of black colour and one was of white
colour. When the licence in respect of keeping and bringing Acitic N
Hydride was demanded from the accused, same was not produced. In the
presence of Panchas and Kuldeep Singh, B.S. Vasistha divided 44
containers in two-two batches and marked them separately, which on
weighing came to 880 litres of Acitic N Hydride. Two samples from each
of the lots were taken in glass bottles and marks were made thereon and
the remaining materials were seized separately and sealed. On the seal
labels affixed on each container signatures of accused-Kuldeep Singh and
the panch witnesses were obtained. The accused
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25592&ctext="Narcotics" was 6:18:48
(2 of 3)2/18/2004 givenAM
notice in
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25592&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25592&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:18:48 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25613&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25613&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:19:04 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25613&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3017 of 1997
Appeal (civil) 2696-2697 of 2003

PETITIONER:
State of Punjab and Anr.

RESPONDENT:
M/s. Devans Modern Brewaries and Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/11/2003

BENCH:
B.N. Agrawal

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT

B.N. AGRAWAL,J.

The question involved in this batch of appeals, arising out of an order


of reference made by a three Judge Bench of this Court, is as to whether
Article 301 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as "the
Constitution") will have any application in relation to potable liquor the
business whereof is said to be res extra commercium; in view of the
decisions of this Court in Cooverjee B. Bharucha Vs. The Excise
Commissioner & The Chief Commissioner, Ajmer, & Ors., [(1954) SCR
873]; The State of Bombay Vs. R.M.D. Chambarbaugwala [(1957) SCR
874]; Har Shankar & Ors. Vs. The Deputy Excise & Taxation
Commissioner & Ors., [(1975) 1 SCC 737] and Khoday Distilleries Ltd.
& Ors., Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1995) 1 SCC 574].
These appeals arise out of judgements and orders passed by Punjab
and Haryana High Court and Kerala High Court. The State of Punjab
imposed tax on import of potable liquor manufactured in other States. The
State of Kerala also imposed a similar levy. The Punjab and Haryana High
Court by its judgment dated 17.01.1997 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
5358 of 1996 quashed the notification dated 27.03.1996 imposing levy of
import duty by the State of Punjab in exercise of its powers conferred upon
it under Sections 31, 32 and 58 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Punjab Act') on two grounds viz.; (i)the State has no
power to levy such tax under the Punjab Act and (ii) in view of the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Kalyani Stores Vs. The State
of Orissa and others [1966(1) SCR 865], the imposition of duty is ultra
vires Article 301 of the Constitution.
So far as challenge to imposition of import duty on potable liquor by
the State of Kerala under Abkari Act, 1077 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Abkari Act") is concerned, the Kerala High Court has dismissed the writ
application on grounds, inter alia, that such duty, being regulatory in
nature, is not ultra vires the Abkari Act. The High Court did not enter into
the question of applicability of Article 301 of the Constitution vis-`-vis
effect of imposition of such import duty on potable liquor.
Mr. P.N.Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant - State of Punjab in the Punjab matter having regard to several
provisions of the Punjab Act submitted that the High Court committed a
manifest error in holding that the State has no power to impose such a tax.
As regards applicability of Article 301 of the Constitution, the learned
counsel contended that as the State has the exclusive privilege to deal in
potable liquor in any manner it likes, it has the concomitant requisite power
to impose such tax by way of restriction on import. The learned counsel
further contended that as no trader can claim any fundamental right in
carrying on trade or business in potable liquor, question of applicability of
Article 301 of the Constitution would not arise.
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25613&ctext="Narcotics" It may not
(2 of 3)2/18/2004 beAM
6:19:04 out of place to
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25613&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25613&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:19:04 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25675&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25675&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:19:10 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25675&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 414 of 2000
Appeal (civil) 415 of 2000

PETITIONER:
The State of Goa & Anr.

RESPONDENT:
M/s. Colfax Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/10/2003

BENCH:
S. Rajendra Babu & G.P. Mathur

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT

G.P. Mathur, J.

1.M/s Colfax Laboratories (India) Ltd. and State of Goa have preferred
these appeals by special leave against the judgment and order dated 1.4.1999
of High Court of Bombay (Goa Bench), by which the writ petition preferred
by M/s Colfax Laboratories (India) Ltd. was partly allowed.
2.M/s Colfax Laboratories (India) Ltd. (for short 'Colfax') was granted
a licence to manufacture various types of cosmetics including after shave
lotion under the trade mark 'Old Spice' on 15.4.1968 under the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act. A licence under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations
(Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') in form L-1 for manufacture
of 'Old Spice' after shave lotion and cologne for men as toilet preparations
was granted on 1.4.1969. Till the end of the year 1984 excise duty on 'Old
Spice' after shave lotion (hereinafter called as 'ASL') was paid on the basis
that it was a toilet preparation. On 14.1.1985 Colfax moved an application
before the Commissioner of Excise, Government of Goa for reclassification
of Old Spice ASL as a 'medicinal preparation' falling under Tariff Item
No.1(i)(b) of the Schedule to the Act for the purpose of levy of excise duty.
The Excise Commissioner vide his order dated 23.3.1985 classified the same
as 'medicinal preparation'. Subsequently, by the order dated 12.6.1985 Old
Spice ASL was classified as falling within the ambit of Item No.1(i)(b) of
the Schedule. Colfax thereafter made application for refund of excess
amount of the excise duty paid after 23.3.1985 which was allowed by the
Commissioner of Excise and orders for refund of the excess amount of the
excise duty were passed.

M/s PJM Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. moved an application before the


Drugs Controller, Government of Goa on 14.1.1989 for manufacture of
some cosmetic products including 'Blue Stratos' ASL under the loan licence
with M/s Colfax Laboratories (India) Ltd. which was approved and a licence
was issued on 13.2.1989. The Excise Commissioner vide order dated
12.10.1989 approved the price inclusive of duty, the duty component thereon
as well as the maximum price for the products. M/s PJM Pharmaceuticals
Pvt. Ltd. started paying duty on Blue Stratos ASL at the rate applicable to
medicinal preparations.

3.On 15.5.1991, the Commissioner of Excise, Goa issued a notice under


Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules,
1956 to Colfax to pay balance of excise duty amounting to
Rs.17,77,16,361.20 (Rupees seventeen crore, seventy-seven lakh, sixteen
thousand, three hundred sixty one and paise twenty only) within 30 days
from the date of receipt of notice on the ground that w.e.f. 1.4.1985 the
company had paid excise duty on Old Spice range of ASLs as medicinal
preparation though it should have paid duty
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25675&ctext="Narcotics" as3)2/18/2004
(2 of toilet preparation.
6:19:10 AM On
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25675&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25675&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:19:10 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25704&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25704&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:19:24 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25704&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 633 of 2003

PETITIONER:
Rajendra and Anr.

RESPONDENT:
State of Madhya Pradesh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/12/2003

BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Appellants faced trial for alleged commission of offences


punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20 (B)(1) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act'). Each
was found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 3 years and
to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation by the learned
Special Judge (NDPS) Bhopal. The conviction and sentence were maintained
by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by the impugned
judgment.

Background facts as projected by the prosecution during trial are


as follows:

On 31.3.2001, while Inspector Ajay Singh Bisen (PW-10) was on duty


at G.R.P. Police Station, Bhopal, he received an information that two
persons had got down from Madhya Pradesh Express and were waiting at
platform No.2 for Coolie with suitcases and bags in which they were
carrying contraband article (Ganja). This information was recorded by
him (Ex.P-25) and thereafter, he proceeded with his staff to the place
as per the information received by him. He found the appellants standing
with the suitcases and bags. On search of the suitcase of appellant no.1
Rajendra, he found 23 kilograms of "Ganja" therein, which was seized.
Likewise, on the search of the bag of appellant no.2 Kalicharan he found
17 kilograms of "Ganja" therein, which was also seized. PW-10 prepared
the seizure memos (Exh.P-5 and P-8 respectively). He took samples of 25
grams each and sealed the same. The sample Panchnama is Exh.P-7. The
seized articles were kept in sealed condition in the Malkhana. PW-10 had
sent the sealed samples with specimen of seal to the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Sagar vide Exh. P-23 on 12.4.2001 and the report of the
laboratory is Exh.P-29. PW-10 sent the full report of the search and
seizure to the senior railway police as per Exh. P-28, dated 1.4.2001.
K. Barsaiya (PW-3) was posted as Malkhana Moharrir in the Police
Station, Government Railway Police, Bhopal and on 31.3.2001, the seized
"Ganja" and the sample packets along with the suitcase and bag which
were seized from the appellants were deposited by him in the Malkhana in
a sealed condition.

Placing reliance on the evidence adduced, the trial Court recorded


conviction and imposed sentence as noted supra. Appeal before the High
Court did not bring any relief.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants


submitted that there was violation of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act.
There was no proof of endorsement to the superior officer as mandated in
Section 42(2) of the Act. Before the search
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25704&ctext="Narcotics" was
(2 of made 6:19:24
3)2/18/2004 the accused
AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25704&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25704&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:19:24 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25711&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25711&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:19:26 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25711&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 778 of 1997

PETITIONER:
State of Punjab

RESPONDENT:
Bhag Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/12/2003

BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Refusal to grant leave to question acquittal in terms of Section


378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') is
the subject matter of challenge. According to the appellant-State of
Punjab the one line "No merit. Dismissed" order of the High Court
without assigning reasons therefor does not meet the requirements of
law.

Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') faced trial


for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 18 of the
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the
'Act'). Prosecution version was that on 26.4.1995 accused was found in
illicit possession of a large quantity of opium weighing one kilogram
which was being carried in a bag. The officer who apprehended the
accused informed him that if he wanted the bag to be searched in the
presence of a gazetted officer of police or a magistrate, he could
indicate his choice. The accused however reposed confidence on the Sub-
Inspector of Police who had apprehended the accused. Samples were
collected and sent for chemical examination. As the samples were found
to contain opium, on completion of investigation accused was challaned
to face trial. During his examination under Section 313 of the Code the
accused denied the allegations and pleaded false implication.

The trial Court held that the prosecution version was entirely
dependent upon the testimony of official witnesses and since no
independent witness was involved, the prosecution version was
vulnerable. It was noted that the search and seizure was made at a
through fare and it is unbelievable that no independent witness was
available. The trial Court therefore directed acquittal. The appellant-
State filed an appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which
refused to grant leave and disposed of the application for leave in the
following manner:

"Heard. No merit.
Dismissed."

According to learned counsel for the appellant-State it was


imperative on the High Court to indicate reasons as to why the prayer
for grant of leave was found untenable. In the absence of any such
reasons the order of the High Court is indefensible. Section 378 (3) of
the Code deals with the power of the High(2Court
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25711&ctext="Narcotics" to grant
of 3)2/18/2004 leave
6:19:26 AM in case
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25711&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25711&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:19:26 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25796&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25796&ctext="Narcotics" (1 of 3)2/18/2004 6:19:31 AM


http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25796&ctext="Narcotics"

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 53 of 2003

PETITIONER:
Smt. Krishna Kanwar @ Thakuraeen

RESPONDENT:
State of Rajasthan

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/01/2004

BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT

[With Crl. A. No. 52/2003]

ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

Originally three appeals were filed against the common


judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, whereby three
appeals were disposed of. During the pendency of Criminal
Appeal no. 51/2003, the appellant Shamshuddin died and by
order dated 20.1.2004 the appeal has been dismissed having
abated. The consideration, therefore, is restricted to other
two appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal nos. 52/2003 and 53/2003.

Of the two appeals one has been filed by convict-


accused Smt. Krishna Kanwar i.e. Crl. Appeal No.53 of 2003
and the other appeal has been filed by the State of
Rajasthan (Crl. Appeal No. 52 of 2003) questioning the
acquittal of accused Mangi Lal and Nathu Singh, as directed
by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. Initially,
seven persons were treated to be accused persons. Four of
them, namely, Shamshuddin, Smt. Krishan Kanwar, Mangi Lal
and Nathu Singh were tried by District and Sessions Judge,
Pratapgarh, who found accused Shamshuddin and Smt. Krishna
Kanwar guilty of offences punishable under Sections 8 and 21
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(in short 'the Act') and sentenced each to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 14 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakh
with default stipulation. Nathu Singh and Mangi Lal (A-6 and
A-7) respectively, were acquitted.

Prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as


follows:

Prassan Kumar Khamesara (PW-16), Dy. S.P. Chhoti Sadri


received information at about 8.30 p.m. on 5.7.1994 to the
effect that on 6.7.1994 between 5.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m., one
Shamshuddin S/o Shakoor Khan, resident of Dharakhedi, shall
be coming on a Rajdoot motorcycle, from Chittorgarh side and
will be proceeding towards Udaipur, alongwith contraband
heroin.

The above information was not only recorded but also


forwarded to S.P., Chittorgarh and Addl. S.P., Pratapgarh
through Indermal (PW-9). Upon above information, Shiv Prasad
(PW-14), Addl. S.P., Pratapgarh alongwith(2lady
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25796&ctext="Narcotics" constable
of 3)2/18/2004 6:19:31 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25796&ctext="Narcotics"

http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=25796&ctext="Narcotics" (3 of 3)2/18/2004 6:19:31 AM