
CITATION | 2016 (2) RLW 1455 (Raj) |
DATE OF JUDGMENT | 26 February, 2016 |
COURT | High Court of Rajasthan |
PETITIONER | Ravi @ Ravikant |
RESPONDENT | State of Rajasthan |
BENCH | Justice Sandeep Mehta |
INTRODUCTION
Ravi @ Ravikant V State of Rajasthan 2016″ is a notable legal case that took place in the Indian judicial system. The case involves Ravi @ Ravikant as petitioner, and State of Rajasthan as a respondent. This case is related to illegal possesion of Alprazolam tablets of gross amount. The year 2016 signifies the year in which the case was heard or decided by the relevant court.
FACTS OF THE CASE
FIR No. 37/2016 was filed in Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh against the petitioner, Ravi @ Ravikant, for an offense under Sections 8/21, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as NDPS Act) because he was discovered in possession of 5,000 Alprazolam tablets, totaling 750 grams.
The NDPS Act classifies the chemical alprazolam as a psychotropic substance. Aside from that, the petitioner also had 200 Carisoma tablets, 800 Fartadol tablets, 84 bottles of Corex Syrup, and 200 Parwan Spa tables found. The charges under the NDPS Act were intensified because the gross weight was more than the threshold for commercial quantity. The fact that he possessed such a large amount of illegal psychotropic drugs without a license, permit, or other justification which indicates that they were intended for therapeutic use.
The petitioner, who was under police custody, has filed the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which permits bail.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether the recovered contraband is covered under the commercial quantity or not?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT
- The petitioner’s attorney argued that the recovered tablets contained only 2500 mg of the psychotropic salt alprazolam. It is better to take into account this net weight as opposed to the tablets’ gross weight. The total weight of the recovered contraband is within the small quantity category based on the net weight of the Alprazolam salt. He claimed that small quantities are subject to less severe penalties under the NDPS Act than commercial quantities.
- Learned Counsel argued that the petitioner ought to be released on bond because the seized contraband is only a small amount. He underlined that the true net weight of the psychotropic substance should be taken into consideration when reassessing the severity of the charges.
- The argument made by the petitioner’s attorney centers on a critical area of drug law enforcement under the NDPS Act, where the distinction between net and gross weight has a substantial bearing on the consequences and results of the legal system. This is a crucial argument in bail applications that can affect the court’s decision to grant the petitioner’s request for release on bond.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
- Regarding the net weight of the psychotropic substance, the petitioner’s attorney made submissions that the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed. He contended that the percentage of the tablet’s psychotropic content cannot be separated from it, in accordance with the notification dated 18.11.2009 issued by the Indian government under the NDPS Act (19). The prosecutor contended that the law mandates considering the gross weight of the entire tablet rather than just the weight of the active psychotropic ingredient.
- The prosecution highlighted that 750 grams is significantly more than what the NDPS Act defines as a commercial quantity. He made the point that there are much harsher penalties and stricter legal standards associated with possessing a commercial quantity of a controlled substance.
- Based on the gross weight exceeding the commercial quantity limit, the prosecutor argued that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. The large quantity of seized drugs implies a higher degree of culpability, warranting continued detention to prevent any potential risk to society and ensure the integrity of the legal proceedings.
JUDGEMENT
The High Court has dismissed the bail application while determining whether the recovered contraband is covered under the commercial quantity or not. The ruling cited the Mohd. Sahabuddin case decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which stipulates that the gross weight of the tablets must be taken into account when psychotropic drugs are transported or possessed without the appropriate paperwork for therapeutic use. This interpretation is supported by the Government of India’s notification dated 18.11.2009, which mandates the evaluation of the tablets’ total weight.
According to the NDPS Act, the gross weight of the 5000 Alprazolam tablets (750 grammes) is significantly more than the threshold for commercial quantities. A key factor in determining the seriousness of the offence and whether Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies is the commercial quantity determination. In light of the aforementioned factors, the petitioner’s situation is covered by the NDPS Act’s Section 37 prohibition. This section limits the amount of bail that can be granted for offences involving the sale of illegal drugs or psychoactive substances. As a result, the bail request was denied due to lack of merit.
ANALYSIS
The court’s ruling is in line with the strict NDPS Act provisions designed to stop drug trafficking. The court upholds the zero-tolerance policy against the unlawful possession and distribution of controlled substances by taking the tablets’ gross weight into account. This interpretation emphasizes how crucial it is to follow the legal definitions and guidelines established by official notifications and precedents.Although taking a strict stance is necessary to combat drug-related offenses, it also raises questions about how appropriate the punishment should be. The petitioner’s reasoning draws attention to a possible gray area where the weight of the active ingredient might not accurately reflect the degree of guilt indicated by the gross weight.
The decision emphasizes the importance of having consistent and clear drug-related laws. Based on the actual harm potential of the active ingredients, relying on gross weight may result in harsher penalties for minor offenses, potentially overloading the legal system with cases that should be handled more leniently. Policy changes are desperately needed to address these nuances and ensure that, while the laws are severe for serious offenders, they are not unduly harsh for those who bear less responsibility.
The court’s goal in denying bail is to maintain the integrity of the legal system while reducing the possibility of reoffending. This ruling highlights the judiciary’s responsibility in maintaining the strict application of the law against drug offenses and acts as a deterrent to others.
CONCLUSION
The judiciary’s strict approach to drug-related offenses under the NDPS Act is demonstrated by this state case. The ruling upholds the zero-tolerance policy against drug trafficking, but it also draws attention to the difficulties and potential areas where drug laws should be interpreted and applied differently. One crucial area for continued legal and policy discourse is striking a balance between proportionality and deterrence.
REFERENCE
This Article is written by Aleeza student of Ziauddin University Faculty of Law, Politics and Governance; 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.
0 Comments