Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. In the present case prima facie it appears that accused nos.1, 2 and 3 had brought 25 Kgs. of Methampethamine from Punjab to Bombay and they were intercepted when they gave delivery of the same to accused no.4, Veer Bahadur Singh - Taxi Driver, who had come to receive the consignment for and on behalf of accused no.5 -

Anil Kumar Menon. Accused nos.1 to 3 did not claim that they had any license or authorisation for possession or inter-state transport from Punjab to Maharashtra. Accused no.4 also does not claim that he had any license or authorisation to take delivery of Methampethamine. According to him he was innocent taxi driver and was not knowing what were contents of the consignment. From his statement under section 67 and from the arguments advanced on his behalf by learned counsel it appears that he was regular taxi driver for accused nos.5 and 6 and accused no.5 had asked him to collect the said consignment and, therefore, he had accepted the said consignment without any knowledge of the same. Accused no.5 claims that he has a certificate for export and import and also licence from the Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra Government for sale, storage and manufacture of certain medicines. He has also produced the copies of relevant certificate and licence. The certificate of Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) appears to have been issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India on 1.11.2004 in favour of Anjali Enterprises situated at Rose Villa, Christain Street, Madh Island, Mumbai, Maharashtra with branch office at Andheri (East).


    This certificate     nowhere indicates that the certificate of import or




                                                  
    export     was     issued     to   him   for    the   purpose       of    possession,



    countries     of    any

transportation, inter-state import or export or export to foriegn psychotropic substance and particularly Methampethamine. It appears to be general Importer Exporter Code, which authorises business of export and import. Naturally, this certificate is of no use when he wants to deal in psychotropic substance like Methampethamine. Next is licence in form 20-D issued by the Licensing Authority, Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra State. This licence is issued on 31st August, 2004 in favour of Anjali Enterprises. It shows that by this licence Anjali Enterprises has licence to sell, stock or exhibit or offer to sell or distribute by wholesale drugs other than those specified in Schedule C, C(1) or X, subject to the conditions specified in the licence and subject to provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules thereunder. Methampethamine is also a drug in Schedule "X" under Drug and Cosmetics Act. The main argument advanced by learned counsel for the accused against application of NDPS Act to Methampethamine is that it is shown in schedule "X" of the Drug and Cosmetics Act but is not shown in schedule-I of the NDPS Rules and, therefore, NDPS Act is not applicable. The above referred licence issued by the Food and Drug Administration gives licence to Anjali Enterprises for certain operations in respect of drugs other than those specified in Schedule C, C(1) and X and, therefore, this licence does not authorise Anjali Enterprises or accused no.5 to sell, stock, distribute, transport etc. any drug and particularly Methampethamine which is shown in schedule "X". In view of the above the Importer-Exporter Code and the licence issued by the Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra State do not provide any authority to accused no.5 to deal with or possess psychotropic substance i.e. Methampethamine. These certificate and licence are of no use in this case.

13. After the claim of accused no.5 to possess Methampethamine on the basis of above referred certificate of Importer Exporter Code or license issued by Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra State is rejected, there is no document on record produced by any of the accused persons to bring their case within the scope and ambit of the exception to Section 8(c). Therefore, consideration of rules framed under NDPS Act would in fact be unnecessary. However, because the learned Counsel for the respondent/accused have relied on certain authorities, contending that as Methamphetamine is not shown in the Schedule I to the Rules, the provisions of NDPS Act are not applicable, it will be necessary to deal with the relevant rules and the authorities relied on by the learned Counsel.