Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (1.38 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Amending Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 4 in The Amending Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Raj Kumar Karwal vs Union Of India And Ors.Withkirpal Mohan ... on 21 March, 1990
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AHMADI, J.- The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), hereinafter alluded to as "the Act",
was enacted inter alia to make stringent provisions for the
control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances and for matters connected
therewith. The enactment received the President's assent on
16-9-1985. The dictionary of the Act is to be found in
Section 2 thereof. Section 2(.xxix) says that words and
expressions used in the Act and not defined but defined in
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter called
"the Code", shall have the meanings assigned to them in the
Code. The Act is divided into six chapters comprising 83
sections. Since in the instant case we are concerned with
only a few provisions we need not examine the scheme of the
Act. We had an occasion to examine the scheme of the Act in
some detail in Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India1. Chapter
IV defines the offences and prescribes stringent
punishments, with minimum punishments and fines for them.
For certain offences the punishment prescribed can extend to
rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and a fine of Rupees two
lakhs, with a minimum rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and
a fine of Rupees one lakh. By Section 37 offences
punishable under the Act are made cognizable and non-
bailable. Where the offender is accused of an offence
punishable with imprisonment of 5 years or more, the section
provides that he shall not be released on bail or on his own
bond unless (i) the Public Prosecutor has had an opportunity
to oppose the bail and (ii) if bail is opposed, the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that he is not guilty and is not likely to indulge in the
commission of similar offences.