| Headnote |
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s. 2(xvii)(a) and (b) and s. 15 – Conviction in relation to ‘poppy straw’ – ‘Poppy straw’ defined to mean all parts of ‘opium poppy’ except the seeds – ‘Opium poppy’ defined under Clause (xvii) of s. 2 of the 1985 Act – As per sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii) of s. 2 of the 1985 Act, ‘opium poppy’ means the plant of the species ‘papaver somniferum L’ – As per sub-clause (b) thereof, ‘opium poppy’ would also mean the plant of any other species of ‘papaver’ from which ‘opium’ or any ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ can be extracted and which the Central Government, by notification in the official gazette, has declared to be ‘opium poppy’ for the purposes of the 1985 Act – Whether it is sufficient for the prosecution to establish that the raw material contains ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’ to bring it under sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii) of s. 2 of the Act or is it necessary for the prosecution to further establish that, though the seized material contains ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’, the genus of the seized material is ‘papaver somniferum L’ or any other species of ‘papaver’ from which ‘opium’ or any ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ can be extracted and which is notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government to be ‘opium poppy’ for the purposes of the 1985 Act – High Court was of the opinion that the tests conducted by the Chemical Examiner to ascertain whether ‘meconic acid’ and ‘morphine’ were present in the sample stuff, were not enough to reach the conclusion that the stuff was, in fact, ‘poppy straw’ – Held: Prior to enactment of the 1985 Act, it was only the plant ‘papaver somniferum L’ which was included in the definition of 1878 and 1930 enactments – By virtue of sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act, the same has been retained – However, noticing that there was some material to show that some other species of ‘papaver’ may also be used for the production of ‘opium’, the legislature, by an abundant precaution, also added sub-clause (b) in Clause (xvii) of s. 2 of the 1985 Act so as to enable the Central Government to notify such a species from which ‘opium’ or any ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ can be extracted – The legislative intent is clear that the 1985 Act, in addition to retaining the species of ‘papaver somniferum L’ in the definition of ‘opium poppy’, enabled the Central Government to include any other species of ‘papaver’ from which ‘opium’ or any ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ could be extracted – The legislative intent is to bring any other species of ‘papaver’ which can be used for manufacture of ‘opium’ within the prohibitory and regulatory provisions of the 1985 Act – Once it is established that the seized material contains ‘meconic acid’ and ‘morphine’, it will be sufficient to establish that it is derived from the plant ‘papaver somniferum L’ as defined in sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act – Once a Chemical Examiner establishes that the seized ‘poppy straw’ indicates a positive test for the contents of ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’, it is sufficient to establish that it is covered by sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act and no further test would be necessary for establishing that the seized material is a part of ‘papaver somniferum L’.Interpretation of Statutes – Heydon’s/Mischief Rule – Meaning of – Discussed – Four factors to be considered while applying the rule (i) position before enactment of the Act (ii) mischief and defects for which the earlier enactments did not provide (iii) remedy (iv) reason of the remedy – Held: Legislature by incorporating sub-clause (a) in Clause (xvii) of s. 2 of the 1985 Act, intended to continue ‘papaver somniferum L’ in the definition of ‘opium poppy’ – However, by taking abundant precautions and to take care of a situation where any other species of ‘papaver’ was found to be used for the production of ‘opium’, the legislature vested the Central Government with a power to include such a variety to mean ‘opium poppy’ for the purpose of the 1985 Act – The defect noticed by the legislature was that, though ‘papaver somniferum L’, which contained ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’ and was used for the production of ‘opium’, was already included in the definition of ‘opium’ in the earlier enactments, there was also a possibility of other variety of ‘papaver’ being used for ‘opium’ production, but could not be brought under the prohibitory and regulatory measures – The remedy, which the Parliament provided was by way of incorporating sub-clause (b) in Clause (xvii) of s. 2 of the 1985 Act thereby empowering the Central Government to notify any other species of ‘papaver’ from which ‘opium’ or any other ‘phenanthrene alkaloid’ could be extracted, to be declared as ‘opium poppy’ for the purpose of the 1985 Act – The true reason for the remedy was to empower the Central Government to include any other species of ‘papaver’ which may be used for the production of ‘opium’ and bring the same under the purview of the 1985 Act – The reason was that, if it is found that any species of ‘papaver’ is being used for the production of ‘opium’, the production of such a variety should not be permitted and the same be brought under the prohibitory and regulatory measures as provided under the 1985 Act – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s. 2(xvii) (a) and (b) –Opium Act, 1878 – Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930. Interpretation of Statutes – Purposive interpretation – Principles of – Held: Settled principle of law that an enactment has to be incorporated in such a manner which advances the purpose of the Act rather than interpreting in such a manner which defeats the purpose of the Act – The dominant purpose of the Act, 1985 was to curb the menace of trafficking of drugs and psychotropic substances – Therefore, the interpretation which advances the purpose of the Act, 1985 has to be preferred rather than adopting a pedantic and a mechanical approach – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. |
