Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Intelligence Officer vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 5 January, 2015

Author: J.B.Pardiwala

Bench: J.B.Pardiwala

              R/CR.MA/14514/2013                                        ORDER




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
                                    14514 of 2013

     ================================================================
                        INTELLIGENCE OFFICER....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
     ================================================================
     Appearance:
     MS RV ACHARYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
     PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
     ================================================================

               CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

                                   Date : 05/01/2015


                                    ORAL ORDER

1. By this application under Section 439(2) of the  Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973,   the   applicant  Intelligence   Officer,   Narcotics   Control   Bureau,  Department of Internal Security, Ahmedabad prays for  cancellation   of   bail   granted   in   favour   of   the  respondents   Nos.   2   and   3   vide   order   dated   23 rd  May,  2013   passed   by   the   learned   3rd  Additional   Sessions  Judge, Bharuch bearing C.R. No. 77 of 2013.

2. The   learned   Judge   while   releasing   the   accused  persons on bail observed as under :­ "7. As   per   Notification   S.O.1296   (E)   dated   28th  December,   1999   the   ephedrine   notified   as   N.D.P.S.  Substance. The Notification is as under.

"S.O.1296(E)   -   Whereas   the   Central   Government,  Page 1 of 4 CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION/14514/2013 08/01/2015 12:14:01 AM R/CR.MA/14514/2013 ORDER having regard to the available information about the   use   of   ephedrine   and   pseudoephedrine   in   the  manufacture   of   certain   amphetamines   and  metaphetamine   decided   to   declare   the   same   as  controlled substances.
(2) Now,   therefore,   the   Central   Government   in  exercise of the powers conferred under clause (viia)   of Section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic  Substances Act, 1985  (61  of 1985),  hereby  declares  Ephedrine   and   Pseudoephedrine   and   their   salts   as  controlled   substances   for   the   purpose   of   the   said  clause".

8. In view of the above noted provision, I am of   view that Ephedrine is a Narcotic substance. 

9. Accused   Umeshbhai   Balvantbhai   Pandya   one   of  the accused of this offence has been released by the   Hon'ble   High   Court   of   Gujarat   vide   order   dated   18.01.2011 in C.M.A. No. 14910 of 2010.  Wherein Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat observed that  the Section 25 A of N.D.P.S. Act is not in purview   of   Section   37   of   the   N.D.P.S.   Act   and   therefore  Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is applicable. 

10. On   perusal   of   the   case   papers   and   subject   matter   of   the   case,   I   prima   facie   find   that   the   Ephedrine is a notified Narcotic substance, but not   the Act, Hon'ble Apex Court in Petition No. 380/2013   held   that   the   accused   were   found   in   possession   of   drugs   that   are   mentioned   in   Schedule­1   of   the   Act   but   not   mentioned   in   the   schedule   to   the   Rules  framed under the Act.

11. In view of Section­37 of the N.D.P.S. Act 1985  the accused  is involved  in commercial  quantity and  involved   in   offences   of   Section   19,   24   and   27­A  shall not be released on bail. 

12. The   sub­section(b)(ii)   empowered   Court   to  release on bail. The sub­section(b)(ii) is as under. Sub­section   (b)(ii)   of   Section­37.   "   Where   the  Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court  is satisfied  that  there  are reasonable  grounds for  believing that he is not guilty of such offence and   that he is not likely to commit any offence while on   bail."

13. Hence, in view of the above noted provision,  the Court is satisfied.  In such circumstances, the  Court   can   exercise   the   power   and   use   its  discretionary power if it thinks fit to release on  bail. 




                                        Page 2 of 4
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION/14514/2013            08/01/2015 12:14:01 AM
               R/CR.MA/14514/2013                                          ORDER




14. In   the   case   on   hand,   the   accused   were  manufacturing medicine and they were holding licence  and   licence   is   renewed   for   the   period   from   02.09.2008   to   01.09.2013.   The   Ephedrine   is   not  included in commercial quantity, as per notification  Section 9­A and Section­25 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The  present   case   is   also   not   covered   U/s.   9­A   of   the   N.D.P.S.   Act.   In   view   of   Notification   and  information   produced   by   applicant,   wherein   it   is  disclosed   that   the   ephedrine   is   Narcotic   substance  under the provision of Clause (viia) of Section 2 of   the   Narcotic   Drugs   and   Phychotropic   substance   Act,   1985 and not under Section 9­A of the Act.

15. Applicants/accused   have   dgiven   assurance   for  complying   condition   of   bail   if   any   imposed   by   the   Court.

16. In   view   of   my   above   noted   discussion   and  foregoing   reasons,   the   disputed   substance   is   not  notified in second schedule. The applicant's case is   not covered U/s. 19, 24 and 27­A and therefore not   covered U/s.37(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. It transpires  that   the   percentage   of   the   ephedrine   was   not   determined   in   any   of   the   sample.   Since   last   31   month,  though  the  charge  sheet  has  been submitted,  the trial is yet to be commenced and the charges are   yet   to   be   framed.   Hence,   in   my   view,   there   is   no   possibility of  commencing the trial in  near  future  days. Considering all these facts, I am of the view   that the bail application is required to be allowed.   In   my   view,   this   is   a   fit   case   to   exercise   the   discretionary powers to enlarge the accused on bail.   Hence, I am of the view that the accused are ordered   to be released on bail. The accused/applicants are  ordered   to   be   released   on   bail   in   connection   with   the   N.C.B.   Case   No.4/10   registered   with   Narcotics  Control   Bureau,   Ahmedabad   on   their   furnishing   bond   of   Rs.1,00,000/­(Rupees   One   Lacs   Only)   with   one   surety   of   like   amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   Court and subject to following conditions.

3. The impugned order is also dated 23rd  May, 2013.  Almost one and half years has elapsed since the time  the accused were ordered to be released on bail. The  learned   Judge   has   assigned   cogent   reasons   while  exercising   discretion   in   favour   of   the   accused  persons.   I   do   not   find   any   basic   infirmity   in   the  Page 3 of 4 CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION/14514/2013 08/01/2015 12:14:01 AM R/CR.MA/14514/2013 ORDER order   going   to   the   root   of   the   matter,   warranting  cancellation of bail 

4. In that view of the matter, this application is  rejected. 

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Manoj Page 4 of 4 CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION/14514/2013 08/01/2015 12:14:01 AM