Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549

CITATION	(2004) 3 SCC 549
DATE OF HEARING	11th March 2004
COURT	The Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Customs , New Delhi
RESPONDENT	Ahmadalieva Nodira
BENCH	Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Justice Arijit Pasayat, and Justice G.P. Mathur

INTRODUCTION:

The case Customs, New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira, 2004 concerned the granting of bail to the accused, Ahmadalieva Nodira, an original Uzbek native who came in India to sell clothing but was found red-handed in possession of a substantial amount of Diazepam (5 mg pills). After obtaining the narcotics back from her, the Customs officials had arrested her. The High Court of Dehli granted the foreign woman relief in the form of bail in 2004.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira concerns the seizure of a large quantity of Diazepam (5 mg tablets) by police on April 4, 2000, at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi. The appellant, Ahmadalieva Nodira, is an Uzbek national.

When Nodira was detained on April 5, 2000, she acknowledged that she was the owner of the five milligramme Diazepam pills in the statement required by Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Then, after filing an application for bail, the Special Court rejected it, citing the severe conditions outlined under the Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Nodira filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court against the Special Court’s denial of bail, arguing that the Act did not properly classify the confiscated Diazepam pills as psychotropic substances. The prosecution’s inability to produce sufficient evidence to show that the material satisfied the chemical requirements listed in the NDPS Act’s schedule was the real reason behind the decision High Court’s.

To declare the decision to grant Nodira bail unlawful, the customs officials petitioned the Supreme Court. The High Court’s refusal to impose statutory bail limitations under the section 37 of the NDPS Act, which makes it more difficult to determine whether the accused is innocent and unable to commit any crimes, was stated with dissatisfaction by the Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Was the Delhi High Court’s decision in accordance with the bail requirements specified in Section 37 of the NDPS Act?
2. Is it possible to argue that the “reasonable grounds” for thinking the accused person is not always guilty were carefully considered?
3. Were the legislative circumstances supporting the strict bail provision of the NDPS Act in line with the decisions made by the High Court?
4. Did the Central Control Laboratory’s report’s evidentiary cost get accurately compared by the High Court ?
5. Does the NDPS Act’s definition of a “psychotropic substance” apply to 5 mg tablets of benzodiazepines?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT:

1. The appellant further cited the Delhi High Court’s disregard  under the   Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which governs the granting of bail in situations involving the possession of narcotic tablets and other psychotropic substances.
2. According to Section 37, unless if the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood that the accused is not guilty about the  and will not commit any crimes while out on bail, the accused cannot be released on bond and an application for bail cannot be granted without giving the accused a reasonable opportunity to show cause against it.
3. The appellant contended that the High Court disregarded evidence indicating the seized Diazepam tablets were validated by a report from the “Central Control Laboratory,” which was admissible and compared to the descriptions included in the NDPS Act’s Schedule.
4. The appellant said that if the laboratory record had been taken into consideration, a lot more weight would have been placed on the conclusion that the material that was taken into custody qualified as a psychotropic drug for the purposes of the Act.
5. The appealing party attempted to argue that it was incorrect for the Dehli High Court to have improperly considered the reasonable reasons for supposing the accused was responsible for the offence.
6. According to the appellant, the phrase “reasonable grounds” implies more than just prima facie grounds and necessitates strong probable reasons, none of which the High Court properly considered. Here, the appellant cited the fundamental Act’s legislative policy on the strict guidelines established for the granting of bail under the NDPS Act mandates that drug usage and trafficking be curbed.
7. The appellant further cited the Delhi High Court’s disregard for Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which governs the granting of bail in situations involving the possession of narcotic tablets and other psychotropic substances.
8. Regarding the strict provision created for the bail granting under the NDPS Act, which directs the need to restrict drug misuse and trafficking, the appellant here pointed out the legislative policy being pursued by the central Act.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT:

1. Additionally, the respondent argued that the prosecution had not given the court enough proof to support its claim that the Diazepam pills that were seized qualified as “psychotropic substances” under the NDPS Act.
2. The respondent cited procedural infractions in the case overseen by the customs officials, claiming that the respondent’s arrest and detention did not adhere to the tight guidelines for incarceration.
3. The contention that the proper protocols for obtaining, documenting, and organising the evidence were not adhered to prompted grave concerns over the dependability of the prosecution’s evidence.

4. Nodira contended that the available evidence, which includes a Central Control Laboratory document, is insufficient to demonstrate how the drug that was taken into custody was used in relation to the chemical criteria listed in the NDPS Act’s Schedule.
5. Nodira emphasised that she does not conduct any crimes and that the High Court may take into account her reasonable motivations in this situation.

6. The respondent also brought up a number of concerns regarding the medical and health reasons for her confinement as well as the humanitarian ones.
7. She claimed that the evidence used against her was based on her own statement, which was taken under duress and without a correct jail outline, raising questions about its credibility and admissibility
8. She claimed that because of the dubious evidence against her, her detention was unfair and cruel since it was causing undue harm to her physical and emotional health.
9. Nodira clarified the nature of her defence by pointing out that while the NDPS Act’s goals include stopping the use and distribution of illegal substances, it also has to uphold the rights of minors to morality and prevent them from being punished.
10. Respondent contended that, in the face of little and dubious evidence against her, the High Court’s decision to grant bail was consistent with her right to personal freedom. As per the respondent’s argument, the prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence that the Diazepam pills that were apprehended met the criteria of a “psychotropic substance” under the NDPS Act.

JUDGEMENT:

It doesn’t seem possible to fairly conclude that the accused was not guilty of the claimed offence given the background information mentioned above. It was not necessary, therefore, to give the accused bail. It is decided to set aside the contested judgement granting bail and revoke the bail amount. The responder, the accused, is ordered to turn themselves up right away. Moreover, the Trial Court may notify the guarantor and, should the accused refuse to turn themselves up as instructed, may make appropriate instructions regarding the surety and level of security. It is made apparent that no conclusive judgement about the case’s merits has been rendered. The case judgement is an landmark of Customs.

CONCLUSION

The Apex Court of India in “ Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira (2004) 3 SCC 549” stressed the necessity of strictly enforcing customs regulations and reaffirmed the strict stance against the unlawful entry of drugs. Strict measures are necessary to prevent drug trafficking and for national security, the Court affirmed, upholding the sanctions imposed on the defendant. This seminal ruling demonstrates the judiciary’s dedication to upholding strict regulation of illicit drugs, guaranteeing adherence to the law, and defending the general welfare of society.

REFERENCE

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1026836/

This Article is written by Kotla Shiva Kumar student of Central university of Haryana ; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.