Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIAversusMOHANLAL & ANR.
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 267
- Decided
- 3 July 2012
- Bench
- T S THAKUR
Holding
Destruction of seized narcotic contraband is a statutory duty and constitutional mandate, and the High Court’s acquittal was erroneous; the matter must be remanded with directions for comprehensive data collection and procedural reform.
Summary
The Union of India appealed the acquittal of Mohanlal and another by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had held that the prosecution failed to prove the destruction of 3.36 kg of opium seized under Sections 8/18(b) read with 29 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the lack of proof of destruction invalidated the seizure and held that destruction of seized narcotics is a statutory duty and a constitutional mandate under Article 47 and Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The Court found that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused and directed a comprehensive inquiry into the seizure, storage, and destruction practices across all states, appointing an amicus curiae to identify procedural gaps. It issued detailed questionnaires to state authorities, high court registrars, and central agencies, and ordered the collection and submission of reports within three months. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded for further action with systemic reforms.
Issues considered
- The prosecution’s failure to produce evidence of destruction of seized narcotic contraband defeats proof of seizure under the NDPS Act.
- Whether destruction of seized narcotic drugs is a statutory duty and a constitutional mandate.
- Whether compliance with the standing order and procedural guidelines for destruction is essential for conviction.
- The need for systemic oversight and judicial supervision of seizure, storage, and destruction of narcotics across states.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 451
- Constitution of Indias. Article 47
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 18(b), s. 29, s. 52A, s. 8
Subjects
NDPS Actseizure of narcoticsdestruction of contrabandconstitutional dutyArticle 47judicial supervisionprocedural complianceamicus curiaesystemic reform
Judgment
\
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 823
UNION OF INDIA A
v.
MOHANLAL & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 652 of 2012)
JULY 3, 2012
B
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
.. ss. 8!18(b) rlw s. 29 and 52A - Charge u!ss. 8!18(b) rlw s. 29
- Impugned order acquitting the accused on the ground that C
failure to produce the contraband before co11rt, in absence of
proof that the same was destroyed as per prevalent procedure,
implies failure to prove its seizure - In appeal, brought to the
notice of the Supreme Court that States not following the
procedure prescribed for destruction of the seized contraband D
resulting in accumulation of the seized contrabands
increasing chances of its pilferage and re-circulation - Held:
Destruction of seized contraband Is not only the statutory duty
but a constitutional mandate - India being the signatory to
United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic and Narcotic E
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, is required to reduce
the vulnerability of the contrabands to substitution or theft
during its storage - In view of SAARC Convention for Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1990, authorities
concerned required to take follow up action to eliminate drug F
abuse - Directions issued for collection of information, as
regards Seizure, Storage, Disposal/Destruction and Judicial
Supervision, from the police heads of each State through the
Secretary concerned relating to the nature and extent of the
problem and the available measures - Queries enumerated G
- Direction to Chief Secretaries of the States to serve a
questionnaire on the above lines to the Director General of
Police of the State for a report - Registrar General of the High
Court in each State to Pe Nodal Officer and to ensure
823 H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A collections of the reports from the Chief Secretary of the Stare
concerned and submit the report to the Supreme Court,
containing a summary of the information - Answer to the
queries specified under the head 'Judicial Supervision' to be
collected by the Registrar Generals of the High Court
B independently from the District and Sessions Judges
concerned - Direction also to Chief of the agencies viz.
Narcotics Control Bureau, Central Bureau of Narcotics,
Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence and
Commissionerates of Customs and Central Excise Including
c Indian Coast Guard, to issue similar questionnaire to the
officers concerned and submit a report before Supreme Court
- Standing Order No. 1189 and Circular dated 22nd February,
2011 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Government of India - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 47
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 451 - United Nations
0
Convention Against Illicit Traffic and Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances - SAARC Convention for Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1990.
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10
E SCC 283: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 39 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 39 Referred to Para 5
F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 652 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 05.01.2010 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal
No. 193 of 2008.
G
Ajit Kumar Sinha, R.P. Bhat, Sushma Manchanda,
Shreekant N. Terdal for the Appellant.
Sunil Verma, Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, Sanjay Sharawat
H for the Respondents.
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL & ANR. 825
The order of the Court was delivered by A
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the
Union of India against the judgment and order of the High Court
of. Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Appeal No.193 of
2008 whereby the High Court has acquitted the respondents B
of the charges framed againstthem under Section 8/18(b) read
with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, primarily for the reason that no evidence
regarding the destruction of the 3.36 Kgs. of opium allegedly
seized from the respondents had been provided by the
prosecution. In the absence of any evidence to show that the C
seized contraband was destroyed as per the prevalent
procedure, the contraband should have been, according to the
High Court, produced before the Trial Court. The failure of the
prosecution to do so, therefore, implies a failure to prove the
seizure of the contraband from the possession of the D
respondents.
2. When this appeal came up for hearing before us on
11th April, 2012, Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary, learned senior
counsel, appearing for the appellant, argued that the High Court E
was in error in holding that the procedure prescribed for
destruction of the contraband had not been followed and the
destruction of the seized quantity had not been proved. In
support of his submission he placed reliance upon Standing
Order No.1/89 and Circular dated 22nd February, 2011 issued F
by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Government of India, impressing upon the Chief Secretaries of
the States and the Union Territories as also Heads of Police
of the States to comply with the instructions and the procedure
prescribed by the Standing Order. We had, upon consideration G
of the submission made by Mr. Choudhary, passed an order
on 11th April, 2012 in which we said:
"We have been taken through the contents of the
Standing Order also which prescribes the procedure for
search, disposal and destruction of the seized contraband. H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A We are not, however, very sure whether the said procedure
is being followed as it ought to be. The pilferage of the
contraband and its return to the market place for circulation
is, in our opinion, a major hazard against which the system
must guard at all cost if necessary by making suitable
B changes wherever the same are called for. Before any
exercise to that end is undertaken it is necessary .to
examine whether the procedure is beingJoUowed in letter
and spirit. For that purpose in view we request Mr. Ajit
Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel to assist this Court
c as Amicus Curiae and identify if possible, by reference to
the standing order and the ·available material, the weak
links in the chain of the procedure of search, disposal or
destruction of the narcotics and the remedial steps, if any,
needed to plug the holes. To that extent we are inclined to
enlarge the scope of this appeal for we are of the view that
D
the hazardous nature of the substance seized in large·
quantities all over the country must not be let loose on the
society because of human failure or failure of the system
that is purported to have been put in place."
E 3. Pursuant to the above we have heard Mr. Ajit Kumar
Sinha, learned senior counsel, who argued that the procedure
prescribed for destruction of the contraband seized in different
States has not been followed resulting in a very peculiar situation
arising on account of such failure and accumulation of the
F seized drugs and narcotics in large quantities thereby
increasing manifold the chances of pilferage for re-circulation
in the market from the stores where such drugs are kept. In
support of that submission Mr. Sinha placed reliance upon a
press report published in the timesofindia.indiatimes.com
G dated 12th July, 2011, Linder the heading "Bathinda's police
stores bursting at seams with seized narcotics". From a reading
of the said report it appears that the inventory of the. drugs
seized by the police over the past many decades include drug
seized as far as back as in the early eighties. Large quantities
H of seized drugs are said to have lost their original colour and
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL & ANR. 827
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
texture, making even the task of preparing the inventories A
difficult.
4. It was further stated that, not only traditional drugs like,
opium, poppy husk, charas etc. but other drugs and modern
narcotic substances are also awaiting disposal which includes
8
39 lakh sedatives and narcotic tablets, 1.1 O· lakh capsules, over
21,000 drug syrups and 1828 sedative injections apart from 8
kgs. of smack and 84 kgs. of ganja.
5. The position is, according to Mr: Sinha, no better in
some other States like Gujarat, Rajasthan and Bihar whose C
boundaries touch international borders. He submitted that in the
absence of proper data from the concerned authorities it will
not be possible to take stock of the magnitude of the problem
no matter challenges posed by rampant drug abuse have
attained formidable proportions affecting especially the youth D
and driving them towards crime and anti-social activities. Our
attention was drawn by Mr. Sinha, to the judgment of this Court
in Sunderbhai Amba/al Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10
SCC 283 where this Court has emphasized the need for a
proper and prompt exercise of the power to destroy the seized E
contrabands and recommended supervision by the registry of
the High Court concerned to see that the rules in this regard
are implemented properly. He· also drew our attention to an
order dated 3rd December, 2010 passed by the High Court of
. Judicature at Patna in which the High Court had recommended F
overhaul of the existing system so far as the procedure of
seizure, sampling and sending of the seized articles to the FSL
is concerned. The Court in that case noticed that 57% of the
samples sent for testing were pending examination for four
years causing delay in the trial of NDPS cases which was G
unfortunate to say the least. The Court also noticed steps to be
taken in checking the despatch of reports from the FSL and
recommended a revamp of the system. A similar order was
passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP.
No.1868 of. 2011 where the High Court was informed by the H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A State of Punjab and Haryana that incinerators for the destruction
I of such contrabands and drugs shall be provided by March
2012.
6. Mr. Sinha supplemented his submissions by filing
8 written submissions relying upon Article 47 of the Constitution
of India and Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 1985 besides
Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. to argue that destruction of seized
narcotic drugs is not only a statutory duty but a constitutional
mandate. He also relied upon United Nations Convention
C against Illicit Traffic and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances and urged that India being a signatory to the
Convention had no doubt promptly added Section 52A to the
NDPS Act but much more was required to be done to reduce
the vulnerability of such contrabands to substitution or theft while
in storage in poorly secured and ramshackle storage facilities.
D Referring to SAARC Convention for Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances, 1990, it was urged by Mr. Sinha that
while most of the countries were committed to elimination of
drug abuse from their society, the ground reality is that there
was no will to take follow up action by the concerned authorities.
E He, therefore, prayed for issue of appropriate directions to the
States to furnish information relating to the nature and the extent
of the problem faced by them so that this Court could, upon
consideration of the matter, direct systemic changes having
regard to the procedure followed and the experience of other
F countries in the world faced with similar problems.
7. We find considerable merit in the submissions made
by Mr. Sinha. The problem is both wide-spread and formidable.
There is hardly any State in the country today which is not
G affected by the production, transportation, marketing and abuse
of drugs in large quantities. There is in that scenario no
gainsaying that the complacency of the Government or the
officers dealing with the problem and its magnitude is wholly
misplaced. While fight against production, sale and
H transportation of the NDPS is an ongoing process, jt is equally
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL & ANR. 829
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
important to ensure that the quantities that are seized by the A
police and other agencies do not go back in circulation on
account of neglect or apathy on the part of those handling the
process of seizure, storage and destruction of such
contrabands. There cannot be anything worse than the society
suffering on account of the greed or negligence of those who B
are entrusted with the duty of protecting it against the menace
that is capable of eating into its vitals. Studies show that a large
section of the youth are already victims of drug abuse and are
suffering its pernicious effects. Immediate steps are, therefore,
necessary to prevent the situation from going out of hand. We, c
therefore, consider it necessary to direct collection of the
information from the police heads of each one of the States
through the Chief Secretary concerned on the following
aspects:
Seizure D
1. What narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
(natural and synthetic) have been seized in the last 10 years
and in what quantity? Provide year-wise and district-wise details
of the seizure made by the relevant authority. E
2. What are the steps, if any, taken by the seizing
authorities to prevent damage, loss and pilferage of the
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (natural and
synthetic) during seizure/transit?
F
3. What are the circulars /notifications /directions I
guidelines, if any, issued to competent officers to follow any
specific procedure in regard to seizure of contrabands, their
storage and destruction? Copies of the same be attached to
the report. G
Storage
1. Is there any specified/notified store for storage of the
seized contraband in a State, if so, is the storage space
available in each district or taluka? H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] .6 S.C.R.
A 2. If a store/storage space is not available in each district
or taluka, where is the contraband sent for storage purposes?
Under what conditions is withdrawal of the contraband
permissible and whether a Court order is obtained for such
withdrawal?
B
3. What are the steps taken at the time of storage to
determine the nature and quantity of the substance being stored
and what are the measures taken to prevent substitu.tion and
pilferage from the stores?
c 4. Is there any check stock-register maintained at the site
of storage and if so, by whom? Is there any periodical check
of such register? If so, by whom? Is any record regarding such
periodic inspection maintained and in what form?
D 5. What is the condition of the storage facilities at present?
Is there any shortage of space or any other infrastructure
tacking? What steps have been taken or are being taken to
remove the deficiencies, if any?
6. Have any circulars/notifications/directions/guidelines
E been issued to competent officers for care and caution to be
exercised during storage? If so, a copy of the same be
produced.
Disposal/ Destruction
F
1. What narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
(natural and synthetic) have been destroyed in the last 10 years
and in what quantity? Provide year-wise and district-wise details
of the destruction made by the relevant authority. If no
destruction has taken place, the reason therefor.
G
2. Who is authorised to apply for permission of the Court
to destroy the seized contraband? Has there been any failure
or dereliction in making such applications? Whether any person
H
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL & ANR. 831
[T.S. THAKUR, J.)
having technical knowledge of narcotic drugs and psychotropic A
substances (natural and synthetic) is associated with the actual
process of destruction of the contraband?
3. Was any action taken against the person who should
have applied for permission to destroy the drugs or should have 8
destroyed and did not do so?
4. What are the steps taken at the time of destruction to
determine the nature and quantity of the substance being
destroyed?
c
5. What are the steps taken by competent authorities to
prevent damage, loss, pilferage and tampering/substitution of
the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (natural and
synthetic) during transit from point of storage to point of
destruction? D
6. Is there any specified facility for destruction of
contraband in the State? If so, a list of such facilities along with
location and details of maintenance, conditions and supervisory
bodies be provided.
E
7. If a facility is not available, where is the contraband sent
for destruction purposes? Under whose supervision and what
is the entire procedure thereof?
8. Is any record, electronic or otherwise prepared at the
F
site of destruction of the contraband and by whom? Is there any
periodical check of such record? What are the ranks/
designation of the supervising officers charged with keeping a
check on the same?
Judicial Supervision G
1. Is any· inspection done by the District and Sessions
Judge of the store where the seized drugs are kept? If drugs
are lying in the store, has the Sessions Judge taken steps to
have them destroyed? H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A 2. Is any report of the inspection conducted, submitted to
the Administrative Judge of the High Court or the Registry of
the High Court? If so, has any action on the subject being taken
for timely inspection and destruction of the drugs?
8 3. Are there any pending applications for destruction of
drugs in the district concerned, if so, what is the reason for the
delay in the disposal 9f such application?
4. What level officers including the judicial officers are
associated with the process of destruction?
c
5. At what stages are the magistrates/ judicial officers/ any
other officer of the Court associated with seizure/storage/
destruction of drugs?
6. Are there any rules framed by the Court regarding its
D supervisory role in enforcement of the NDPS Act as regards
seizure/storage/destruction of drugs?
7. What is the average time for completion of trial of
NDPS matters?
E
8. The Chief Secretaries of the States shall ensure that a
questionnaire on the above lines is served upon the Director
General of Police of the State for a report and on receipt of
the report forward the same to the Registrar General of the
F State High Court.
9. The Registrar General of the High Court in each State
shall be the Nodal Officer and shall ensure collection of the
reports from the· Chief Secretary of the State concerned,
scrutinise the same, get clarifications and further information
G wherever necessary and submit the report to this Court
containing a summary of the information so collected, as early
as possible but not later than three months from the date of a
copy of this order being received by him.
H 10. The Registrar Generals shall independently secure
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL & ANR. 833
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
from the concerned District and Sessions Judges, in their A
respective States, answer to the queries specified under the
head "Judicial Supervision" within the same period.
11. Chiefs Of Central Government agencies viz. Narcotics
Control Bureau, Ceotral Bureau of Narcotics, Directorate B
General of Reven,ue Intelligence and Commissionerates of
Customs & Central Excise including the Indian Coast Guard
' I
shall issue similar.questionnaire to the concerned officers and
submit a report detailing the information required in terms of ·
this o~der within three months from today.
c
12. Post the matter after the reports in terms of the above
are received from all concerned.·
K.K.T. Matter pending.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "NDPS Act"Sign in to search