Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Umrawati Devi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)MPHT77(CG)
Author: R.S. Garg
Bench: R.S. Garg
ORDER R.S. Garg, J.
Heard .
1. Diary of Crime No. 1046/2000 of Police Station Chhaoni Distt. Durg, for the offence punishable under Section 20B of NDPS Act, perused.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant without making any reference to the merits of the matter submits that as possession of Ganja has been considered to be an offence under the provisions of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and as in view of Section 81 of NDPS Act, 1985, the provisions of the said Act have been saved, and as in accordance with Section 82 which deals with repeals and savings, M.P. Excise Act, 1915 has not been repealed, the field relating to Ganja would still be covered by the provisions of Excise Act, 1915 and the provisions of NDPS Act, especially Sections 8, 20 and 37 would not be applicable. According to him, as the provisions of NDPS Act, are applicable, the bar contained in Section 37 would also not apply.
3. Ms. Singhai, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.
4. Undisputedly, before enforcement of NDPS Act, 1985, different laws were covering different fields relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. The Opium Act, 1857, the Opium Act, 1878, the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 and the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 were dealing with the possession and offences relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Section 81, on which very strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant reads as under :--
"81. Saving of State and special laws.-- Nothing in this Act or in the rules made thereunder shall affect the validity of any Provincial Act or an Act of any State Legislature for the time being in force, or of any rule made thereunder which imposes any restriction or provides for a punishment not imposed by or provided for under this Act or imposes a restriction or provides for a punishment greater in degree than a corresponding restriction imposed by or a corresponding punishment provided for by or under this Act for the cultivation of cannabis plant or consumption of, or traffic in, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance within India."
Section 82 which deals with repeals and savings reads as under :--
82. Repeal and savings.-- (1) The Opium Act, 1857 (13 of 1857), the Opium Act, 1878 (1 of 1878) and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 (2 of 1930) are hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under any of the enactments repealed by sub-section (1) shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the provisions of M.P. Excise Act, 1915, have not been specifically repealed under Section 82 of the Act, the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 would not apply to a case of Ganja,
6. From a perusal of Section 82 of the NDPS Act, it would appear that the Opium Act, 1857, the Opium Act, 1878 and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 stand repealed. Sub-section (2) of Section 82 of NDPS Act provides that notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under any of the enactments repealed by subsection (1) shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act. True, it is that Section 82 of NDPS Act, 1985 does not deal with the provisions of M.P. Excise Act, 1915. Section 81 provides that the NDPS Act and rules made thereunder shall not affect the validity of any provincial Act or an Act of any State Legislature for the time being in force, or of any rule made thereunder which imposes any restriction or provides for a punishment not imposed by or provided for under the NDPS Act, or, imposes a restriction or provides for a punishment greater in degree than a corresponding restriction imposed by or a corresponding punishment provided for by or under the NDPS Act. Section 81, in fact, is in two parts. The second part provides that the validity of any provincial Act or an Act of any State Legislature for the time being in force, or of any rule made thereunder if provides for any restriction or a punishment greater in degree, then the corresponding restriction imposed or a corresponding punishment provided for by or under NDPS Act, then the provisions of such provincial or State Act shall be saved. In simple words, it means that if the NDPS Act does not provide for any restriction or provides for lesser sentence, then the State Act which provides for any restriction or greater degree of punishment, then such State or Provincial Act would stand saved. The first part of Section 81 provides that where the State Act or the rules made thereunder provide for imposition of some restriction and for a punishment which is not provided under the NDPS Act, then such State Act would stand saved. As a corollary, it would mean that where the Central Act/NDPS Act, 1985 imposes any restriction or provides for punishment in relation to some narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which are greater in degree in relation to punishment, then the provisions of the State Act shall stand repealed.
7. By no stretch of imagination, it can be argued that because M.P. Excise Act, 1915 has not been specifically repealed under Section 82 of NDPS Act, 1985 and the provisions of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 would stand survived. The simple meaning of provisions of law are that if no imposition is provided or lesser punishment is provided in the NDPS Act, then the State Act would survive and in the other contingency if the NDPS Act, 1985 provides for any imposition and for punishment in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, then the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 would apply.
8. The construction put-forth by learned counsel for the applicant runs contrary to the basic principles of statutory interpretation, Shri G.P. Singh in his celebrated book "Interpretation of Statutory Law" has referred to the principles of redendo singula singulis and has observed that particular words are to be read in conjunction with particular phrases. Giving an example, he has stated that if the words are not read in their proper perspective and are read out of the context, then, it may lead to chaotic condition.
9. The principles of "ejusdem generis" would also have a great role to play in the statutory interpretation. As a man is known by the company he keeps the words derive their meanings from the associates with which the said words are used. A simple perusal of Section 81 of the NDPS Act, 1985 would make it abundantly clear that the provisions of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 would survive only in relation to the impositions relating to restrictions and punishments for which no provisions have been made under NDPS Act, 1985 and/or where the NDPS Act does not provide for a restriction or provides for lesser sentence.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, I am unable to hold that the provisions of Section 8, 20(b) and Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply to a case of possession of Ganja.
11. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed.
12. Misc. Criminal Case dismissed.