Case Title:
Hira Singh Vs Union Of India
Date:
22ND APRIL 2020
Bench:
JUSTICE MR. SHAH
Parties:
APPELLANT – HIRA SINGH
RESPONDENT – UNION OF INDIA
Subject
The appellant in this case challenged the validity of the judgment provided by the Kerala High Court under Section 21 of the NDPS Act which convicted the accused by the quantity of the prohibited substance out of the mixture and not the whole quantity of the mixture.
Important Provisions
Section 21 of the NDPS Act – Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.
Overview
The High Court considered only the prohibited quantity in a mixture to be taken into consideration for conviction of the accused under Section 21 of The NDPS Act.
This was decided by the Kerala High Court in the case of E. Michael Raj Vs. Intelligence Officer.
The appellant stated that his conviction was contrary to law as he had a mixture of 4.7kg wherein only 60 grams was heroin and he had to be convicted for the said amount only and not for the entire quantity of the mixture.
The respondent referred to the case of Amarsingh Ranjbhai Barot Vs. State of Gujarat and argued that the appellant must be convicted for the entire amount of the mixture and not only for the quantity of the prohibited substance
The Kerala High Court convicted the appellant for the 60 grams only and not for the entire 4.7kg of mixture.
Issues raised
Whether under section 21 of the NDPS Act only the prohibited substance out of the mixture should be taken into consideration for imposing punishment as suggested in the case of E. Michael raj Vs. Intelligence Officer?
Advancements made by the appellants
- The learned counsel for the appellants stated that punishing a person based on the quantity of the whole mixture rather than the quantity of the prohibited substance is irrational has one guy who has 5 grams of prohibited substance and another person who has 1 gram of prohibited substance mixed with 250 grams of neutral substance then the second person has to face greater punishment for carrying lesser amount of prohibited substance.
- Neutral substance was not defined in the NDPS Act and neither a punishment for carrying neutral substance was defined in NDPS Act.
- Thereby only the drug should be considered and not the whole mixture
Advancements made by the Respondents
- The learned counsel for respondents stated that the drugs were sold in mixtures thereby the quantity of the mixture should be taken into account while convicting.
- Section 2(xx) of the NDPS Act defines preparation which confirms that NDPS also deals with preparation within a mixture.
- Section 22, 2(xx), 2(xxxiii) shows that the punishment covered preparation of the mixture and not just the prohibited substance.
- They relied upon the US case Chapman Vs. United States where it was stated that the conviction was based on the weight of mixture and not only on the quantity of the prohibited substance.
- With all these above-mentioned statements the judgment provided in the case of E. Michael Raj Vs. Intelligence Officer was ‘bad in law’.
Judgment Analysis
The Court stated that not taking the quantity of the neutral substance and just the quantity of the prohibited substance in a mixture under Section 21 of the NDPS Act was not right. The whole mixture should be taken into consideration for conviction and the fact whether the quantity of the prohibited substance in the mixture is small or high does not matter
Conclusion
The Hon’ble Court concluded by stating that the decision given out in the case of E. Michael Raj was ‘bad in law’ and also stated that while convicting a person the quantity of the whole mixture should be considered and not just the quantity of the prohibited substance present in the mixture.
Click here for NDPS Course by Adv. Taraq Sayed and Riva Pocha
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
