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 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sudheep .M vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2018

Author: Mary Joseph

Bench: Mary Joseph

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

    WEDNESDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 18TH ASWINA, 1940

                      Bail Appl..No. 6613 of 2018

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Bail Appl. 5815/2018 of HIGHCOURT

 CRIME NO. 39/2018 OF Mananthavady Excise Range Office , Wayanad



PETITIONER/ACCUSED:


             SUDHEEP .M
             AGED 33 YEARS
             S/O RATNA KUMAR, MANIKKOTH HOUSE, HOUSE NO.
             792(37/849), KALOOR THAZHAM PARAMBA BHAGAM, PUTHIYARA
             DESOM, KASABA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
             SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
             SMT.T.J.SEEMA



RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
             STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031



OTHER PRESENT:
             SR.PP. SMT. MAYA M.N.


  THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
  10.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl..No. 6613 of 2018

                                          2




                                     JUDGMENT

This is the second application filed by the sole accused involved in Crime No.39/2018 of Excise Range Office, Mananthavady, Wyanad District.

2. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was found, by the Excise Officials at 4.40 a.m. on 06.06.2018 in a Karnataka S.R.T.C bus at Tholpetti Excise Check Post in Tirunelli Village, Mananthavady Taluk, in possession of 600 capsules of Pyeevon Spas Plus and 96 capsules of Spasmoprodyvon Plus containing Tramadol, a psychotropic substance, without any authority. The petitioner was arrested then and there and the contraband was seized. He was in judicial custody since 06.06.2018. Application moved first in point of time as B.A. No.5815/2018 was dismissed by this Court considering the seriousness involved in the offence.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the contraband if taken and weighed separately from the strips it contain, it would only be small quantity and this Court is justified in granting bail to him. Yet another contention drawn by the learned counsel was Bail Appl..No. 6613 of 2018 3 that by virtue of the Notification issued as SRO No.3448(E) dated 13.07.2018 by the Ministry of Finance, an amendment is proposed to be incorporated into the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) (for short 'the NDPS Act'), which reads :

"Note : The licensed manufacturers, importers and exporters of Tramadol shall be covered under the provisions of this Notification after the expiry of a period of 120 days from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette."

4. It is contended by the learned counsel on the strength of the Notification that by virtue of the amendment proposed to be incorporated, licensed manufacturers, importers and exporters of Tramadol shall be exempted after the expiry of a period of 120 days from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. According to the learned counsel, by virtue of the Notification the offence alleged will not be attracted and the petitioner would be exempted from the purview of the NDPS Act.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that even if the Notification takes effect and the amendment would be carried out, that would favour only the licensed manufacturers, Bail Appl..No. 6613 of 2018 4 importers and exporters of Tramadol and not petitioner, who allegedly does not have any authority to deal with the contraband.

6. Going by the allegations itself it is seen that the petitioner was in possession of psychotropic substance without any authority. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a licensed manufacturer, importer or exporter of Tramadol so as to come within the purview of the amendment.

The quantity involved in the case being larger quantity, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, would be applicable and this application is not liable to be entertained.

In the result, this application stands dismissed.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE ttb