UNION OF INDIA VS RAM SAMUJH AND ANOTHER (1999) 

INTRODUCTION 

 This is an appeal against the order by the Allahabad Lucknow High Court on 21.05.1997, the Narcotics Department authorities raided the house of accused 1 Ram Samujh Yadav in the tubewell and recovered 5 kg of opium. The prosecution argues that this is an offense under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (“NDPS Act”), which makes such offenses cognizable and non-cognizable. The Supreme Court of India laid down the important key factors and gave the needed judgement. 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. According to the prosecutor, on May 21, 1997, the authorities of the narcotics department arranged a pipe well in the house of accused 1 and recovered 5 kg of opium. The Sessions Judge by a detailed reasoned order dated July 11, 1997 rejected the bail application after hearing the Special Public Prosecutor (Narcotics) and perusing the material on record. The Supreme Court granted bail on 20.8.1998 in a cryptic order, an extract from which is given below: “The petitioner has been in prison since 22.05.1997 and the trial has not ended.
2. Petitioner Ram Samujh was admitted to bail in Criminal Case No. 15 of 1997 under Section 8/18 of PS Kotwali, Barabanki, Barabanki District, NDPS Act on Personal Bond and Two Special Judges (NDPS Act). The accused is not guilty of such offense and is not likely to make the offense bailable. The power of the parliament must refer to Section 37 of the Act. This provision makes the offenses committed under the Act cognizable and non-punishable.
3. It reads as follows: “37. Intelligible and non-causable offences. —

 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 (2 of 1974), — 

(a) every offense punishable under this Act must be ascertainable to oppose the application for discharge, and 

(ii) if the prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasons to believe that he is not guilty of the commission of such offense and not likely to offend against bail 

(2) The restrictions on the granting of bail referred to in subsection (1) are in addition to the restrictions in the Criminal Procedure Act 1973 (2/1974) and apply to the restrictions in the Criminal Procedure Act 1973 (2/1974) at the time bail is granted.”

ISSUES RAISED  

Whether the order of the Allahabad Lucknow Bench High Court of Judicature granting bail to respondent 1 Ram Samujh Yadav be set aside on the ground that the High Court ignored the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the law established by the Supreme Court.

CONTENTION OF RESPODENT 

1. Since defendant 1 did not hire a lawyer, the Chancery was ordered to appoint an amicus curiae lawyer. We have heard the counsels of the parties. 
2. The only issue in this appeal is whether the order of the High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench granting bail to the respondent 1 Ram Samujh Yadav is set aside on the ground that the High Court ignored the provisions of Section 37. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the “NDPS Act”) and any law made by this court.

JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court said that the High Court erred in granting bail to Ram Samujh Yadav without considering the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the adverse socio-economic consequences and health risks of illegal trade in dangerous drugs. The court emphasized that the law must be applied in the spirit in which the Parliament changed it after consultation. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order dated 20.8.1998 of the High Court of Judicature, Lucknow Bench, Allahabad acquitting respondent 1 Ram Samujh Yadav was set aside and set aside.

It must be borne in mind that the aforementioned legislative powers must be followed and obeyed. It must be remembered that in a murder case, the defendants kill one or two people, while drug dealers play an important role in causing death or inflicting the death blow on several innocent young victims. who are vulnerable; it causes harmful and fatal consequences to society; they are dangerous for society; Even if they were temporarily released, they would probably continue their evil activities, i.e. smuggling and/or drug dealing. The reason may be a large bet and illegal profit.

The High Court did not give any valid reason for not complying with the said authority when it ordered the release of the accused on bail. Instead of attempting a holistic view of the adverse socio-economic consequences and health hazards associated with the illegal trade in dangerous drugs, the court should apply the law as amended by Parliament after due consideration. 9. The appeal is accepted. The impugned order dated 20.8.1998 of the Allahabad High Court of Judicature, Lucknow Bench acquitting respondent 1 Ram Samujh is set aside and set aside. Defendant 1 is forced to surrender.

CONCLUSION 

To conclude, the case underscores the nature of section 37 and key features of NDPS Act. And stated the true nature of section 37 of the NDPS Act. 

Illegal trade of such dangerous drugs can be really harmful on the society, especially on the growing youth of this country. Drugs can harm our society by encouraging young youth to fall into traps of illegal trade and consumption of such substances. 

REFRENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/. 
2. https://www.casemine.com/. 

This article is written by Avni Jain, a student of 6th semester of IILM University Gurugram, an intern under 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.

Admin