Opium Licence Does Not Explain Poppy Straw Possession: Supreme Court Restores NDPS Conviction

Acting on secret information, an Inspector of the Narcotics Department and other officials raided the respondent's house on 20.11.1992 and recovered 29 bags of poppy straw weighing 309 kg, whose legal possession he could not explain (para 2). He was convicted under Sections 8(c) and 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of one lakh rupees (para 1). The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, acquitted him by a practically non-reasoned order, citing non-compliance with Sections 42(2) and 50 and noting that his father held a licence to cultivate opium (paras 1-2). The Union of India challenged the acquittal (para 1).

The Act defines opium and poppy straw separately and lists them as separate entries, at Sl. Nos. 92 and 110, so the two expressions are not interchangeable; the High Court had not acquitted on that ground in any case (paras 6-7). The inference that the seized poppy straw might be covered by the father's licence was "a conclusion without any foundation and basis" (para 10). The accused's statement under Section 67 threw considerable light on the controversy: the Court found no retraction at any point, from the statement of 20.11.1992 to his Section 313 examination of 6.2.1999, and no allegation of torture when he was produced before the Magistrate (para 7). In that statement he had clearly admitted ownership (para 16). The Court noted Kanhaiyalal and A.K. Mehaboob on such statements (paras 8-9). On Section 57 it relied on T. Thomson and Malvinder Singh: there is no statutory requirement that the record of the information be produced in court as a matter of course (para 11). On Section 42 it set out M. Prabhulal, which held that a Gazetted Officer who himself searches, arrests and seizes acts under Section 41 and need not comply with Section 42 (paras 12-13, 15).