Judgment Intelligence
Bail RejectedMd. Sahabuddin & Anr. v. State of Assam
2012 INSC 454
Criminal Appeal No. 1602 of 2012 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 5503 of 2012)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 5 October 2012
- Bench
- Justices T.S. Thakur and Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 36A; Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Section 27
Final Outcome
Appeal dismissed and bail refused; the Court clarified that its observations were only for the bail application and not on the merits of the allegations (para 17).
Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — judgment dated 05.10.2012
Key holdings
- A transporter of a huge, undocumented consignment of codeine syrup cannot escape the NDPS Act by invoking the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (para 10).
- The exemption notifications require codeine within limits per dose unit and use only in therapeutic practice (para 12).
- Without proof of a therapeutic purpose, the codeine content is assessed on the whole bottle, not per dose (para 13).
- Decisions concerning licensed traders acting in regular business do not help unlicensed transporters (para 16).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
On 16.02.2012 the police intercepted a truck on National Highway 31 in Assam; searched the next day, it held 347 cartons of Phensedyl and 102 cartons of Recodex cough syrup, each of 100 bottles, concealed with household articles, and the driver had no documents (para 2). The syrup contained codeine phosphate beyond the prescribed quantity; by the High Court's calculation the codeine came to 8.218 kg (paras 2, 7). The Sessions Judge on 30.03.2012 and the Gauhati High Court refused bail (para 4). The appellants relied on the syrup being a Schedule H drug and on each 5 ml dose holding under 10 mg of codeine (paras 5, 8, 12).
Court's Findings
Having transported such a huge quantity without valid documents, the appellants could not claim to be free of the statutory requirements of either the Drugs and Cosmetics Act or the NDPS Act (para 10). Each 100 ml bottle held about 183 mg of codeine phosphate, and they could not say for whom the supply was meant (para 11). The exemption in the notifications of 14.11.1985 and 29.01.1993 requires not more than 100 mg of codeine per dose unit, a concentration of not more than 2.5 per cent, and use only in therapeutic practice; a dose-based calculation applies only where the syrup is kept or carried to cure disease (para 12). Bulk, undocumented and stealthy transport could not be presumed to be for therapeutic practice, so the whole content of each bottle counted and the penal provisions applied (para 13). The decisions relied on involved licensed traders and did not apply (para 16), and the plea of custody beyond the statutory period, raised for the first time, was not considered (para 15).
Legal Principle
The NDPS exemption for codeine preparations measured by dose applies only where the preparation is meant for therapeutic use. Bulk transport of codeine cough syrup without documents showing a lawful medical supply is not covered, and the whole codeine content counts (paras 12-13).