Become Like 'Chanakya' To Nip Drug Peddling Menace: Karnataka HC To NCB [Read Order]

Justice B A Patil while quashing a case registered under provision of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, against 23-year-old Abdul Aleem said "I am conscious of the fact that nowadays cases of high profile drug peddling are increasing and such circulation is also increasing. I am also conscious of the fact that it has got a serious effect in the society particularly, harming the younger generation, the college going children, it promotes crimes, easy money and it affects the life of youngsters who are the future of this country, they will be much affected. The said menace has to be removed from root level like "Chanakya" who removed the grass by taking it as a challenge."

Earlier, a Coordinate Bench of the court heard the matter and vide order dated 14.12.2016 allowed the petition and proceedings initiated in the special case had been quashed. Subsequently, an application came to be filed by the respondent (NCB) to recall the order dated which was allowed by order dated August 22, 2017. Following which the accused preferred a fresh petition for quashing the case while the trial before the special court was ongoing.

Prosecution case:

As per the prosecution case, the Intelligence Officers of NCB received credible information that on 27.08.2013 the petitioner/accused was carrying ganja or cannabis, while travelling in a car. The said vehicle has been intercepted by the officials of NCB and on search of the car they found a white colored bag containing dried leaves dark brown in color and the same is claimed to be ganja, which was seized by drawing a mahazar. The said ganja was weighing about 15.552kgs and after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. The accused was arrested under Section 8(c) r/w Sections 20(b), 28, 29 & 32B(d) of NDPS Act.

Petitioners Arguments:

Senior Advocate HASHMATH PASHA, appearing for the petitioner contended that "The panchnama which has been produced clearly goes to show that the articles seized from the car contained dried leaves dark brown in color and the same is not the ganja as defined in the NDPS Act." Further, he said that the Superintendent of NCB was examined during the trial and during the cross examination he has clearly admitted that he has not gone personally to the spot and on perusal of the seized articles, it was containing the dried leaves of ganja."

Pasha also relied on Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, to contend that the said thing must contain flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops). If it only leaves, then no offence has been committed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under the NDPS Act.

He also plucked holes in the Chemical Analysis report by arguing that even if the said content contains ganja, the proper weighing of the said material is also very much necessary in order to determine whether it is small quantity, intermediate, or commercial quantity. To assess this, proper weighment has to be done, which is absent in the present case.

Prosecution Arguments:

Special Public Prosecutor H. Mallan Goud opposed the plea on the grounds that "Already the charge sheet has been filed after full investigation and some of the witnesses have been examined before the court, the remaining witnesses have to be examined to substantiate the case of the prosecution. If the remaining witnesses are to be examined, the fact is going to be proved by the respondent and if at this juncture, the power if it is exercised, it is nothing but an illegal exercise of power to quash the proceedings."

Court Observed:

Justice Patil noted "When the contents of the complaint is looked into, that itself says that the seized material is only dried leaves dark brown in color. Be that as it may. Subsequently, PW2 (Superintendent) came to be examined before the Court and during the course of cross-examination he has clearly admitted that the said article is only dried leaves and material which has been seized is considered to be dried leaves. Then under such circumstances, the FSL report which has been produced is not acceptable."

It added "There is a material contradiction to the contents of complaint, evidence of PW-2 and FSL report. If really, the seized article was containing the article which has been mentioned in the FSL report like the greenish brown plant part like leaves, seeds, flowers tops etc., under such circumstances, definitely, the same could have been mentioned in the contents of the complaint and evidence of PW-2."

Following the contradiction in the evidence the court said the continuation of the criminal case would be a judicial waste of time. It observed "When the entire material is analyzed and if the said quantity of the article which has been seized is not considered to be Ganja within the definition then under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings before the Court below is nothing but it is abuse of process of law. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the prosecution has to examine many more witnesses to substantiate its case but the documents produced itself clearly points out the seized article is only dried leaves brown in color then under such circumstances, any quantity of the evidence which is going to be produced orally is not going to help the case of the prosecution in any manner, it is nothing but waste of the valuable judicial time."

The bench concluded by saying "There is a trend of inculcation of drugs, ganja and other such things in the society by various transactions and it has created menace in the society and such things are to be dealt with iron hands and they could not be spared even for a while. However, in the absence of any legal material, this Court will be helpless only to pass the present order.

Accordingly it ordered "In that light, on perusal of the material produced it indicates that the said seized articles do not fit within the definition of the NDPS Act. Under such circumstances, the same has to be quashed."

Case Details:

Case Title: ABDUL ALEEM, And THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU,

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9319/2016

Date of Judgment: 15 SEPTEMBER, 2020.

Coram: Justice B A Patil.

Appearance: Sr Advocate HASHMATH PASHA, for petitioner , Special Public Prosecutor H. Mallan Goud, for respondents.

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]