Top News Headlines 15th Dec 2021: Drugs Used For Sexual Enhancement Outside The Scope Of NDPS

Drugs Used For Sexual Enhancement Outside The Scope Of NDPS- SC

• In a recent judgement, a bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justices Hima Kohli and Surya Kant said that “a large number of tablets that have been seized by the DRI admittedly contain herbs/medicines meant to enhance male potency and do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act”.
• The facts of the case were that on information received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Unit (DRI) had seized around 1,37,665 tablets weighing around 90 kgs from 4 locations in Chennai.
• The accused was granted bail by the Special NDPS Court on the following grounds-

1. He was not found in possession of any contraband, either on his person or at his residence.
2. The scientific report had not yet come.
3. He was arrested after 5 months on the sole testimony of a co-accused under 67 NDPS Act .
4. No live link was established between him and the other four co-accused.
5. It was unclear whether the tablets seized (which were sexual enhancement drugs according to the accused) would fall within the sphere of NDPS Act.

• The trial court, relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble SC in Tofan Singh vs. State of Madras (2021)4 SCC1 where the court held that ‘the confessional statement recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act has been held to be inadmissible in the trial of an offence under NDPS Act” granted bail to the accused.
• An appeal was preferred against the bail order in the Hon’ble Madrac HC. The court cancelled the bail order while making “scathing remarks” against the learned Trial Court Judge.
• Overturning the impugned order, the Supreme Court granted bail to the accused with the following reasoning-

“The records sought to be relied upon …conclude with a note appended by the Assistant Commercial Examiner at the foot of the report stating that ‘quantitative analysis of the samples could not be carried out for want of facilities’. In such absence of clarity, the prosecution cannot be heard to say at this preliminary stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substance. Further, a large number of the tablets that have been seized by the DRI admittedly contain herbs/medicines meant to enhance male potency and they do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act.”

• Thus, in the absence of any contraband being found on the conscious person of the accused, the Hon’ble SC restored the order of the trial court and granted bail to the accused.

For our aspirants! Let’s see if you can answer the following-

Power to call for information has been provided under which section of the NDPS Act?

Stridhan Outside The Scope of Dowry Prohibition Act- Kerala HC

• In an appeal filed by the husband in a dowry case (Vishnu R. Vs State of Kerala), Justice M.R.Anitha of the Hon’ble Kerala HC has held that the gifts given to the bride for her welfare are outside the scope of Dowry Prohibition Act.
• The petitioner in this case had married the respondent in 2020. Relations became strained between the two as a result of which the respondent initiated legal proceedings before the Nodal Officer.
• According to the counsel for the petitioner, the parents and brother of the respondent had deposited all the jewellery in their joint bank locker, the keys of which were with the respondent (wife).
• The petitioner also argued that “the Dowry Prohibition Officer will not get jurisdiction to entertain the petition since the allegation of the respondent (wife) is that the ornaments which were given to her for her well being have been kept in the bank locker and was not yet returned”.
• The Hon’ble Court held that “the presents given at the time of marriage to the bride without any demand having been made in that behalf and maintained in a list in accordance with the rules made under this Act ( has to be highlighted) will not come within the purview of section 3(1) which prohibits giving and taking of dowry”.
• Shedding light on the jurisdiction of the Dowry Prohibition Officer, the Court held that the DPO will have jurisdiction only when the ornaments directed to be returned to the wife constitute dowry and has been received by a person other that the wife who is entitled to it according to section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In this condition the DPO can direct the parties to return the same.

Question for our aspirants! Let us know the answer in the comments below!

When did the Dowry Prohibition Act come into force?

I Have “Kidney Stones”!! Grant Me Bail?

• While cancelling the bail order of the Sessions Judge, Hon’ble Justice W. Diengdoh of the Meghalaya HC on 10 December, 2021 in State of Meghalaya vs. Heibormi Dkhar said that “it is obvious that the impugned order is passed without due application of mind and the discretionary power was not exercised judiciously which leaves this Court with no option but to set aside and quash the same”
• The accused in the present case was charged with the kidnapping, rape and murder of a minor. He was therefore charged under Section 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 302(punishment for murder) and 201(causing disappearance of evidence of the offence or giving false information to screen offender) of the IPC as well as section 3/4 and 11/12 of POCSO Act.
• The counsel for the accused pleaded that the accused was arrested even though he was not named in the FIR. Also, he suffered from the serious condition of kidney stones which made him need special medical attention which was not possible in jail.
• The counsel for the State argued that though the accused was suffering from kidney stones, the report from the Jail superintendent clearly stated that he was receiving medical attention in the jail itself. Also, the accused lives next door to the victim and if he is released on bail he could threaten the witnesses.
• Another ground raised by the State was that the provision of Section 29 of POCSO (presumption of the guilt of the accused until proven otherwise) was not taken into consideration by the lower court while granting bail.
• On hearing both the counsels, the Hon’ble HC observed-

“In light of the serious charges against the accused and the materials on record, it appears that the learned Special Court (POCSO) could not have released the accused on such grounds even while exercising its discretionary power since there is no extraordinary circumstances which would endanger the life of the accused if bail is withheld, in asmuchas, the jail authorities are duty bound to ensure that proper medical facilities are awarded to the inmates”.

• The Court further held that “in bail jurisprudence the concept of granting bail on humanitarian grounds is not so prevalent and the same is not legally tenable which also renders the impugned order passed on this account to fail the scrutiny of law”.

And now, for our question on the above topic–

What section of the POCSO Act creates an exception to the general rule of burden of proof?