Immunity From Prosecution To Addicts Possessing Small Quantities Of Drugs Should Only Be Given When Addiction Is Proved: Punjab & Haryana HC
Observing that the "country is facing a threat to its socio-economic fabric" by massive drug consumption, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has issued a slew of directions to the Governments of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh to curb the drug menace.
The Court emphasised that the benefit of immunity from prosecution for small quantities under Section 64-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) should not be given unless it has been proven that the accused had a history of drug addiction.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "Unless a consumer or an addict is proven to be a consumer or an addict, thereupon, the benefit of the immunity envisaged in Section 64-A of the NDPS Act, thus cannot be availed by him nor can become granted to him through the aegis of the learned Court concerned, thus on an apposite application becoming filed before it by the learned Public Prosecutor concerned."
The Court also directed the Chief Secretaries to the States of Punjab and Haryana, and, upon the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh, to establish "a Special Cell in each of the Sub-Divisions and Districts in the respective States, rather for effectively disseminating awareness about the ill-effects of consumption of drugs."
It further highlighted the need for purchasing and stocking drug detection kits by the Government and directed that it "shall be made readily available at the de-addiction centres."
The division bench issued detailed directions to the Government which included the following:
The Director General of Police, U.T., Chandigarh to draw further batches of Chandigarh Police personnel, to undergo training at Police Training College, Daroh, District Kangra for investigating NDPS cases.
It also noted that its previous direction to send a batch of police to Himachal Pradesh's Police Training College for a training program on investigating NDPS cases had not been compiled by DGP Haryana. "The said compliances be reported on an affidavit to be sworn by the Director General of Police, Haryana," the bench added.
The Court said that the mere preparation of the standing operating procedure(s) is not sufficient to completely render workable the said provision, provision whereof but for the reasons (supra) is engrafted in the apposite statute with the insightful legislative wisdom hence for curtailing the demand side.
It added that directions are also required to be passed upon the trial Judges concerned, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, to the extent that upon theirs becoming seized with a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C or the corresponding thereto provisions carried in Section 193 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 to, before proceeding to draw a charge qua an offence punishable under Section 27 of the NDPS Act, to elicit from the accused concerned, his voluntariness to employ vis-a-vis him the drug detection kit.
The provisions embodied in Section 64 of the NDPS Act may also become opted by the accused concerned, for extension of benefits thereof to him/them, but subject to his/theirs making a full disclosure of the whole circumstances leading to such contravention, the court stated.
The Court said that the law should be brought to book "drug warlords" who deploy drug peddlers for trading in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.
Referring to Section 64 of the NDPS Act which empowers central or state government to grant immunity from prosecution under any offence with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person appearing to have been involved in an offence under the NDPS Act, the bench directed that the said provision must be implemented.
"Moreover, the said immunity from prosecution, thus is extendable but only when the person claiming immunity renders a full and truthful disclosure in respect of the offences covered under the NDPS Act," it added.
The bench further said, "for fully activating the said provision (Section 64), "a standing operating procedure is required to be formulated at the respective instances of the Chief Secretaries to the States of Punjab and Haryana, and, at the instance of the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh..."
It also observed that preventive education and awareness generation programmes need to be organised by collaborative efforts of other Central Ministries, State Governments, Universities, Training Institutions, NGOs, other voluntary organizations etc."to address specific target groups (vulnerable and at risk groups) in their neighbourhood, educational institutions, workplace, slums etc. with the purpose of sensitising the target groups and the community about the impact of addiction and the need to take professional help for treatment."
Reference was also made to the National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction (NAPDDR) which laid down a detailed scheme for curbing drug abuse.
The Court thus directed the Chief Secretaries to the States of Punjab and Haryana, and, the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh, "to ensure, that a sufficient quantum of funds is forthwith released to the entitled organizations/institutions."
Furthermore, the bench observed that the Court "records its profound appreciation to the Director General of Police, Punjab and to the Director General of Police, U.T., Chandigarh. However, they are directed to, on an affidavit to be sworn on affidavits, render compliances to the above passed directions upon them."
While directing the filing of the compliance report, the Court listed the matter for August 23.
Ms. Bhavna Gupta, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Manish Bansal, P.P., U.T. Chandigarh and Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh.
Tile: BHUPENDER SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA