In a landmark ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court emphasized that the entire mixture of a narcotic substance, including neutral substances, must be taken into account when determining whether the seized quantity qualifies as “small,” “intermediate,” or “commercial” under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, came in response to Criminal Appeals No. 260 and 349 of 2021, filed by appellants Ambika Vishwakarma and Narayan Das, who challenged their convictions under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act.
Background of the Case
On September 20, 2018, police apprehended the appellants near Parsa Middle School in Ambikapur, acting on information about the transport of illegal narcotics. Searches revealed 143 bottles of R.C. Kuff Cough Syrup containing codeine phosphate from Ambika Vishwakarma and 93 bottles of similar cough syrups from Narayan Das. The recovered substance included 236 bottles of codeine phosphate syrup, a narcotic drug under the NDPS Act.
The Special Judge (NDPS Act), Surguja, convicted the appellants on January 21, 2021, sentencing them to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of ₹1,10,000 each. The appellants challenged this decision, arguing procedural lapses and incorrect classification of the seized drug quantities.
Key Legal Issues
1. Calculation of Drug Quantities:
The appellants contended that only the net content of the narcotic substance (codeine phosphate) should determine the drug’s classification, excluding neutral substances like syrup. They relied on precedents such as E. Micheal Raj v. Narcotics Control Bureau (2008).
2. Compliance with Procedural Safeguards:
The defense highlighted alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, arguing that the appellants were not informed of their right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.
3. Sentencing Above Minimum Punishment:
The appellants contested the imposition of a 12-year sentence, higher than the minimum prescribed 10 years under Section 21(c), without assigning special reasons as required under Section 32B of the NDPS Act.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
The High Court rejected the appellants’ argument regarding the exclusion of neutral substances, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hira Singh v. Union of India (2020), which established that both the narcotic substance and any neutral substances in the mixture must be considered for classification. The court stated:
“If it is accepted that only the actual content by weight of the offending drug is relevant, the purpose of the NDPS Act would be frustrated. What is harmful or injurious is the entire mixture, including neutral substances.”
On procedural safeguards, the court found sufficient compliance, as the Investigating Officer had informed the appellants of their rights under Section 50. The court noted that the seizure witnesses had turned hostile but affirmed the reliability of police testimony.
Regarding sentencing, the court reduced the punishment from 12 years to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, observing that the trial court had not provided specific reasons for exceeding the statutory minimum penalty.
The appeals were partly allowed, reducing the sentence while upholding the conviction. The court reaffirmed the stringent interpretation of the NDPS Act to combat drug abuse and trafficking, highlighting its societal impact.
