Missing Narcotics in records does not attract provisions of Sections 22, 27A, or 29 of the NDPS Act

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Trial Court's Decision to Discharge Accused in NDPS Case. Court rules mere failure to maintain records of psychotropic substances does not constitute offence under NDPS Act; Discharge due to limitation period.

In a significant judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the decision of the Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, to discharge the accused in a case involving alleged contraventions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case revolved around the missing quantity of 870 grams of Alprazolam, a psychotropic substance, from M/s M. Sea Pharmaceuticals.

Presiding Judge Mr. Rakesh Kainthla ruled that the failure to maintain records or account for missing psychotropic substances does not attract provisions of Sections 22, 27A, or 29 of the NDPS Act. Such situations may fall under Section 32, which prescribes punishment for contraventions where no specific punishment is provided.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had filed a complaint against multiple parties, including M/s M. Sea Pharmaceuticals, alleging violations under Sections 22, 27A, 29, and 38 of the NDPS Act. However, the trial court had discharged the accused, citing insufficient evidence to constitute a prima facie case under the relevant sections of the Act.

The High Court noted the absence of any allegations that the accused were manufacturing Alprazolam without a license, or that there was any sale, transport, import, or export of the substance in contravention of the Act. The court acknowledged that M/s M. Sea Pharmaceuticals held a valid license and the missing Alprazolam was not accounted for, but clarified that this did not meet the criteria for offences under the specified sections of the NDPS Act.

Additionally, the court pointed out that the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period stipulated under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, further barring any action in the matter.

The ruling highlights the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the necessity of establishing a prima facie case during the framing of charges. The decision reaffirms that mere procedural lapses such as non-maintenance of records without evidence of illicit activities cannot lead to prosecution under stringent provisions of the NDPS Act.

The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the DRI, reinforcing that the trial court’s decision to discharge the accused was sustainable and required no interference.

Bottom Line:

Mere failure to maintain records or account for missing psychotropic substances does not attract provisions of Sections 22, 27A, or 29 of the NDPS Act. Such cases may fall under Section 32 of the NDPS Act, which prescribes punishment for contravention of provisions where no specific punishment is provided.

Statutory provision(s): Sections 22, 27A, 29, 32 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Regional Unit) v. M/s M. Sea Pharmaceuticals, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2802165