# 1 S.C.R. 651 UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL & ANR

- **Citation:** [2016] 1 S.C.R. 651
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016-01-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 652 of2012
- **Bench:** T. S. Thakur, Kurian Joseph
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1-s-c-r-651-union-of-india-v-mohanlal-anr-31060
- **Pages:** 46

## Headnote

National Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -
s.52A - Seizure, storage and disposal of psychotropic substances -
Standing Order 1189 dated 13.6.1989 prescribing procedure for
conducting seizure and disposal of the contraband - Standing orders
dated 10.5.2007 a71d 16.1.2015 prescribing procedure for disposal
and destruction of seized contraband - Non-observance of uniform
practice or procedure by the States or the Central Agencies in the
matter of drawing samples - No provision in the Act regulating
storage of the contraband- Standing Order dated 16.1.2015 not
superseding the previous Standing Order 1189 - Held: There is no
provision in the Act mandating taking of samples at the time of seizure
- There is conflict between statutory provision and the standing
order regarding taking of samples - Central Government directed .
to re-examine the matter and take suitable steps in this direction -
An application for sampling and certification needs to be made
without undue delay and .the Magistrate on receipt of any such
application is expected to attend to ·the application within reasonable
period without undue delay - High Courts to keep a close watch on
the performance of the Magistrates - Central Government and the
State agencies have not established any notified storage faci/itygodown for storage of seized drugs with proper system of supervision
and control over the stored drugs - Such failure shows a complete
failure bordering criminal negligence by officers who are supposed
to be taking action in this regard - Direction issued to the Central
Government and State agencies to set up adequate storage facilities
with effective supervisory and regulatory controls as prescribed
under standing Order 1189 - The Standing Order 1189 would be
treated to have been superseded to the extent the subsequent
Standing Order dated 16.01.2015 prescribes a different procedure
for destruction/disposal of seized contrabands - Direction to dispose
of the contraband in the manner specified in the present judgment
651
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
652
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] l S.C.R.
- The Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to appoint a
Committee of Judges on the administrative side to supervise and
monitor progress made by the respective States in regard to the
compliance with the direction in the- present case.
Ad,journing the matter, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 52-A(l) of the National Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 empowers the Central
Government to prescribe by a Notification the procedure to be
followed for seizure, storage and disposal of drugs and
psychotropic substances. The Central Government have in
exercise of that power issued Standing Order No. 1189 which
prescribes the procedure to be followed while conducting seizure
of the contraband. Two subsequent stantling orders one dated
10.05.2007 and the other dated 16.01.2015 deal with disposal
and destruction of seized contraband and do not alter or add to
the earlier standing order that prescribes the procedure for
conducting seizures. [Para 11] [683-F-H]
1.2 Para 2.2 of the Standing Order 1/89 states that samples
must be taken from the seized contrabands on the spot at the
time of recovery itself. There is no uniform practice or procedure
being followed by the States or the Central agencies in the matter
of drawing of samples. This is, therefore, an area that needs to
be suitably addressed in the light of the statutory provisions which
ought to b" strictly observed given the seriousness of the offences
under the Act and the punishment prescribed by law in case the
same are proved. The Court proposes to deal with the issue in
an attempt to remove the confusion that prevails regarding the
true position as regards drawing of samples. [Para 11] [683-H;
684-A, DJ
1.3 Section 52A as amended by Act 16 of 2014, deals with
disposal of seized drugs and psychotropic substances. In view of
s. 52A(2)(c) no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband
forwarde

## Text

_Characters 0–39,485 of 87,869. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39485 for what follows._

[2016) 1 S.C.R. 651
UNION OF INDIA
v.
MOHANLAL & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 652 of2012)
JANUARY 28, 2016
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI. AND KURIAN JOSEPH, J.)
National Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -
s.52A - Seizure, storage and disposal of psychotropic substances -
Standing Order 1189 dated 13.6.1989 prescribing procedure for
conducting seizure and disposal of the contraband - Standing orders
dated 10.5.2007 a71d 16.1.2015 prescribing procedure for disposal
and destruction of seized contraband - Non-observance of uniform
practice or procedure by the States or the Central Agencies in the
matter of drawing samples - No provision in the Act regulating
storage of the contraband- Standing Order dated 16.1.2015 not
superseding the previous Standing Order 1189 - Held: There is no
provision in the Act mandating taking of samples at the time of seizure
- There is conflict between statutory provision and the standing
order regarding taking of samples - Central Government directed .
to re-examine the matter and take suitable steps in this direction -
An application for sampling and certification needs to be made
without undue delay and .the Magistrate on receipt of any such
application is expected to attend to ·the application within reasonable
period without undue delay - High Courts to keep a close watch on
the performance of the Magistrates - Central Government and the
State agencies have not established any notified storage faci/itygodown for storage of seized drugs with proper system of supervision
and control over the stored drugs - Such failure shows a complete
failure bordering criminal negligence by officers who are supposed
to be taking action in this regard - Direction issued to the Central
Government and State agencies to set up adequate storage facilities
with effective supervisory and regulatory controls as prescribed
under standing Order 1189 - The Standing Order 1189 would be
treated to have been superseded to the extent the subsequent
Standing Order dated 16.01.2015 prescribes a different procedure
for destruction/disposal of seized contrabands - Direction to dispose
of the contraband in the manner specified in the present judgment
651
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
652
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] l S.C.R.
- The Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to appoint a
Committee of Judges on the administrative side to supervise and
monitor progress made by the respective States in regard to the
compliance with the direction in the- present case.
Ad,journing the matter, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 52-A(l) of the National Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 empowers the Central
Government to prescribe by a Notification the procedure to be
followed for seizure, storage and disposal of drugs and
psychotropic substances. The Central Government have in
exercise of that power issued Standing Order No. 1189 which
prescribes the procedure to be followed while conducting seizure
of the contraband. Two subsequent stantling orders one dated
10.05.2007 and the other dated 16.01.2015 deal with disposal
and destruction of seized contraband and do not alter or add to
the earlier standing order that prescribes the procedure for
conducting seizures. [Para 11] [683-F-H]
1.2 Para 2.2 of the Standing Order 1/89 states that samples
must be taken from the seized contrabands on the spot at the
time of recovery itself. There is no uniform practice or procedure
being followed by the States or the Central agencies in the matter
of drawing of samples. This is, therefore, an area that needs to
be suitably addressed in the light of the statutory provisions which
ought to b" strictly observed given the seriousness of the offences
under the Act and the punishment prescribed by law in case the
same are proved. The Court proposes to deal with the issue in
an attempt to remove the confusion that prevails regarding the
true position as regards drawing of samples. [Para 11] [683-H;
684-A, DJ
1.3 Section 52A as amended by Act 16 of 2014, deals with
disposal of seized drugs and psychotropic substances. In view of
s. 52A(2)(c) no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband
forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the
officer empowered, the officer concerned is, in law, duty hound
to approach the Magistrate for the purposes of (a) certifying the
correctness of the inventory (b) certifying photographs of such
drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true and (c)
to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate
and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn.
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL
These samples are then to be enlisted and the correctness of the
list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. Thus, the
process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under
the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to
be certified by him to be correct. The question of drawing of
samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes
place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above
scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to
Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the
Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and (3) of Section
52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the
trial. There is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of
samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the
States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure. [Paras
12, 13) (684-E; 685-G-H; 686-A-D]
1.4 A conflict between the statutory provision governing
taking of samples and the standing order issued by the Central
Government is evident when the two are placed in juxtaposition.
There is no gainsaid that such a conflict shall have to be resolved
in favour of the statute on first principles of interpretation but
the continuance of the statutory notification in its present form is
bound to create confusion in the minds of.the authorities
concerned instead of helping them in the discharge of their duties.
The Central Government would, therefore, do well, to re-examine
the matter and take suitable steps in the above direction. [Para
13] (686-E-F)
1.5. There is no manner of doubt that the seizure of the
contraband must be followed by an application for drawing of
samples and certification as contemplated under the Act. There
is equally no doubt thatthe process of making any such application
and resultant sampling and certification cannot be left to the whim•
of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general a,- _
Section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matte;
of making of an application or the drawing of samples and
certification. While, there is no room for prescribing or reading a
time frame into the provision, an application for sampling and
certification ought to be made without undue delay and the
Magistrate on receipt of any such application will be expected to
attend to the application and do the needful, within a reasonable
period and without any undue delay or procrastination as is
653
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
654
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) I S.C.R.
mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 52A. The High Courts
will keep a close watch on the performance of the Magistrates in
this regard and through the Magistrates on the agencies that are
dealing with the menace of drugs which has taken alarming
dimensions in the country partly because of the ineffective and
lackadaisical enforcement of the laws and procedures and cavalier
manner in which the agencies and at times Magistracy in the
country addresses a problem of such serious dimensions. [Para
14] [686-H; 687-A-D]
1.6 No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is
effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in-charge of
the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under
Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach
the Magistrate with an application under Section 52A(ii) of the
Act, which shall be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be
required under Sub-Section 3 of Section 52A. The sampling shall
be done under the supervision of the magistrate. [Paras 19-20]
[695-B-D]
2.1 The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 does not make any special provision regulating storage of
the contraband substances. All that Section 55 of the Act envisages
is that the officer in charge of a Police Station shall take charge of
and keep in safe custody the seized article pending orders of the
Magistrate concerned. There is no provision nor was any such
provision pointed out, prescribing the nature of the storage facility
to be used for storage of the contraband substances. Even so the
importance of adequate storage facilities for safe deposit and
storage of the contraband material has been recognised by the
Government inasmuch as Standing Order No.1/89 has made
specific provisions in regard to the same. Section III of the said
Order deals with "Receipt of Drugs in Godowns and Procedure"
which inter alia provides that all drugs shall invariably be stored
in "safes and vaults" provided with double locking system and
that the agencies of the Central and the State Governments may
specifically designate their godowns for storage purposes and
such godowns should be selected keeping in view their security
angle, juxtaposition to courts etc. [Para 15] [687-E-H; 688-A]
2.2 It is evident from a plain reading of para 3.2 of Section
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL
III of Order No.1/89 that storage of all drugs in safes and vaults
has been made mandatory and that agencies of the Central and
the State Governments h·ave been permitted to designate their
godowns for storage purposes. It is also clear that keeping in
view the importance of protecting the seized drugs against theft,
substitution or pilferage the Central Government has prescribed
that such godowns shall be placed under the overall supervision
and charge of a gazetted officer of the respective enforcement
agencies who shall exercise utmost care, circumspection and
personal supervision over the storage facilities. The provision
contained in paras 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 also are aimed at ensuring
that the godown or storage facility is satisfactory and those incharge of the same are made accountable for its upkeep and
effective management. Subsequent Notification including
Notification dated 16'' January, 2015 have in no way diluted the
above requirement. The result is that there is a statutory
framework which governs the storage of drugs and matters
relating and incidental thereto. [Para 15] [689-C-F]
2.3 The said statutory mechanism has been effectively
implemented by the Central Government agencies and by the
State Governments. It is evident from the responses received
from the State and the Central Government agencies that no
notified storage facility-godown has been established for storage
of the seized drugs. Even after a lapse of 26 years since Standing
Order No. 1189 was issued, the Central Government or its
agencies and the State Governments have paid little or no
attention to. the need for providing adequate storage facilities of
the kind stipulated in Standing Order No. 1/89 with the necessary
supervisory and other controls prescribed in Section III of the
said order. The failure on the part of the Central Government
and the State Governments to provide for such storage I·
defeated, if not completely negated the very purpose underlyir _,
the said notification and the provisions made therein. There is as
on date hardly any credible protection against theft, replacement,
pilferage and destruction of the seized drugs on account of the
wholly unsatisfactory and unscientific method of storage of drugs
and psychotropic substances. [Para 15] [689-F-G; 690-A-D]
2.4 There is a complete failure on the part of the Central
Government and its agencies as also the State Governments in
655
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] l S.C.R.
A
taking adequate steps for providing proper storage facilities with
proper system of supervision and control over the drugs that are
stored in the same. [Para 15] [690-F]
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
2.5 The fact that the States and the Central Government
agencies have accepted that no specific register is maintained by
the State Police and that general maalkhana register alone is being
maintained for the seized drugs shows the neglect of all concerned
towards this important aspect and the cavalier manner in which
the issue regarding storage of ceased drugs is approached by
them. Absence of periodical inspection of the storage facility
and the absence of any record suggesting that any inspection has
been carried out by any of the officers shows a complete failure
bordering criminal negligence by officers who are supposed to
be taking action in this regard but have failed to do so. (Para 15]
J690-H; 691-A-BJ
.
2.6 Appropriate directions are issued to the Central
Government agencies and to the States to set up adequate storage
facilities with effective supervisory and regulatory controls as
prescribed in Notification No. 1/89. [Para 16] [691-F]
2. 7 The Central Government and its agencies and so also
the State Governments shall within six months from the date of
the present judgment take appropriate steps to set up storage
facilities for the exclusive storage of seized Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances duly
equipped with vaults and double locking system to prevent theft,
pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. The Central
Government and the State Governments shall also designate an
officer each for their respective storage facility aud provide for
other steps, measures as stipulated in Standing Order No. 1/89
to ensure proper security against theft, pilferage or replacement
of the seized drugs. [Para 20] [695-E-F]
2 .8 The Central Government and the State Governments
shall be free to set up a storage facility for each district in the
States and depending upon the extent of seizure and store
required, one storage facility for more thau one districts. (Para
20] (695-G]
3.1 Section 52A as amended provides for disposal of the
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL
seized contraband in the manner stipulated by the Government
under Clause 1 of that Section. Notification dated 16" January,
2015 has, in supersession of the earlier notification dated lO'h
May, 2007 not only stipulates that all drugs and psychotropic
substances have to be disposed off but also identifies the officers
who shall initiate action for disposal and the procedure to be
followed for such disposal. Para 4 of the Notification inter alia,
provides that officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall within
30 days from the date of receipt of chemical analysis report of
drugs, psychotropic substances or controlled substances apply
to any Magistrate under Section 52A(2) in terms of Annexure 2
to the said Notification. [Para 17] [691-G-H; 692-A-B]
3.2 The notification dated 16'h January, 2015 does not in
terms supersede Standing Order No. 1/89 insofar as the said
Standing Order also prescribes the procedure to be followed for
disposal of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled
Substances and Conveyances. Specific overriding of the earlier
Standing Order would have avoided a certain amount of confusion
which is evident on account of simultaneous presence of Standing
Order No.1189 and notification dated 16" January, 2015. To the
extent the subsequent notification prescribes a different
procedure, the earlier notification/Standing Order No.1/89 would
be treated to have been superseded. In order to avoid any
confusion arising out of the continued presence of two notifications
on the same subject it is clarified that disposal of Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances
shall be carried out in the manner specified/provided by this
judgment, till such time the Government prescribes a different
procedure for the same. [Para 19] [692-G-H; 693-D-E]
3.3 In respect of cases where the trial is concluded and
proceedings in appeal/revision have all concluded finally, before
29" May, 1989, it is directed that the Drugs Disposal Committees
of the States and the Central agencies shall take stock of all such
seized contrabands and take steps for their disposal without any
further verification, testing or sampling whatsoever. In the cases
where the drugs that are seized after May, 1989 and where the
trial and appeal and revision have also been finally disposed of,
The DDCs shall accordingly take stock of all such Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances in
657
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
658
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 1 S.C.R.
relation to which the trial of the accused persons has finally
concluded and the proceedings have attained finality at all levels
in the judicial hierarchy. The DDCs shall then take steps to have
such stock also destroyed under the direct supervision of the
head of the Department concerned. In the cases in which the
proceedings are still pending before the Courts at the level of
trial court, appellate court or before the Supreme Court, the heads
of the Department concerned shall ensure that appropriate
applications are moved by the officers competent to do so under
Notification dated 16" January, 2015 before the Drugs Disposal
Committees concerned and steps for disposal of such Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and
Conveyances taken without any further loss of time. [Para 19]
[693-i<; 694-A-D, F-H; 695-A)
4.
The Chief Justices of the High Courts concerned are
requested to appoint a Committee. of Judges on the
administrative side to supervise and monitor progress made by
the respective States in regard to the compliance with the above
directions and wherever necessary, to issue appropriate directions
for a speedy action on the administrative and even on the judicial
side in public interest wherever considered necessary. [Para 21]
(696-B)
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 652 of2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2010 of the High Court
ofM. P. in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of2008.
Ranjit Kumar, SG, Ajit Kumar Sinha, (A.C.), A. K. Panda, Binu
Tamta, Sushma Manchanda, Pravesh Thakur, Manish Vashishtha, D.S.
Mahra, Shreekant N. Terdal for the Appellant.
Sharwan Dogra, Adv. Gen., Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. Addi. Adv.
Gen., Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu,
Pardeep Kumar (for Corporate Law Group), Hemantika Wahi, Jesal
Wahi, Preetika Dwivedi,Abhinav Mukerji, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Sanjay
Sharawat for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
T. S. THAKUR, CJI. I. When this appeal came up for hearing
before us on 11 'h April, 2012, it was contended by learned counsel for
the appellant-Union of India that Standing Order No. I of 1989 dated
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.]
13"' June, 1989 which prescribes the procedure to be followed for seizure,
sampling, safe keeping and disposal of the seized Drugs, Narcotics and
Psychotropic substances is being followed throughout the country. It
was also contended that Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Government of India, has in terms of a Circular dated 23" February,
2011 impressed upon the Chief Secretaries and the concerned police
heads of the State Governments to ensure that instructions given and
the procedure prescribed in the Standing Order aforementioned was
strictly adhered to. These submissions notwithstanding, doubts about the
procedure being actually followed persisted. Pilferage of the contraband
goods and their return to the market place for circulation being a major
hazard, this Court appointed Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate, as
Amicus Curiae, with a view to making a realistic review of the procedure
for search, disposal or destruction of the narcotics and the remedial
steps that need to be taken to plug the loopholes, if any.
2. On 3" July, 2012 this Court after hearing the Amicus Curiae
prima facie came to the conclusion that the procedure prescribed for the
destruction of the contraband seized in different States was not being
followed resulting in a very piquant situation in which accumulation of
huge quantities of the seized drugs and narcotics has increased manifold
the chances of their pilferage for re-circulation in the market. This Court
659
A
B
c
D
also noted a report published in the timesofindia.indiatimes.com under.
the heading "Bathinda's police stores bursting at seams with seized
E
narcotics" from which it appeared that large quantities of seized drugs
had accumulated over the years including opium, poppy husk, charas
etc. apart from modem narcotic substances. The report suggested that
39 lakhs sedatives and narcotic tablets, 1.10 lakhs capsules, over 21,000
drug syrups and 1828 sedative injections apart from 8 kgs. of smack and
84 kgs. of ganja were awaiting disposal in Bathinda Police stores alone.
The position was, according to Mr. Sinha, no better in other States
especially those situate along the international bprders. It was argued by
the Amicus Curiae that without proper data from the authorities
concerned, it was not possible to take stock of the magnitude of the
problem no matter challenges posed by rampant drug abuse had acquired
alarming proportions affecting the youth, some of whom are driven to
commission of crimes on account of deleterious effects of drug abuse.
3. It was in the above backdrop that by an order dated 3'' July,
2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.652 of 2012 this Court directed
F
G
H
660
A
B
c
D
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] I S.C.R.
collection of information from the police heads of each one of the States
through the Chief Secretaries concerned in regard to seizure, storage,
disposal and destruction of the seized contraband and judicial supervision
over the same. Specific queries were formulated in the order passed by
us with a direction to the Chief Secretaries of the States concerned to
serve the same upon the Directors General of Police for a report to be
forwardf:d through the Registrars General of the High Courts of the
States concerned who were appointed Nodal Officers for that purpose.
Registrars General were also asked to independently secure from the
District and Sessions Judges concerned in their respective States, answers
to the queries specified under the head "Judicial Supervision". Chiefs of
Central Government Agencies viz. Narcotics Control Bureau, Central
Bureau of Narcotics, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence and
Commissionerates of Customs & Central Excise including the lndian
Coast Guard were directed to issue similar queries to the officers
concerned and to submit their respective reports detailing the information
required in terms of the orders passed by this Court. The queries raised
by this Court were in the following words:
"12.J. Seizure
(i) What narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (natural
and synthetic) have been seized in the last JO years and in
E
what quantity? Provide yearwise and districtwise details of
the seizure made by the relevant authority.
(ii) 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
F
seizure/transit?
(iii) What are the circulars/notifications/directions/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
12.2. Storage
H
(i) 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 ta/uka?
(ii) If a store/storage space is not available in each district or
taluka, where is the contraband sent for storage purposes?
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.]
Under what conditions is withdrawal of the contraband
permissible ani whether a court order is obtained for such
withdrawal?
(iii) 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 substitution and
pilferage from the stores?
(iv) 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?
(v) What is the condition of the storage facilities at present?
Is there any shortage of space or any other infrastructure
lacking? What steps have been taken or are being taken to
remove the deficiencies, if any?
(vi) Have any circulars/notifications/directions/guidelines
been issued to competent officers for care and caution to be
exercised during storage? Ifso, a copy of the same be
produced.
12.3. Disposal/Destruction
(i) What narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (natural
and synthetic) have been destroyed in the last JO years and
in what quantity? Provide yearwise and districtwise details
of the destruction made by the relevant authority. If no
destruction has taken place, the reason therefor.
(ii) 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
having technical knowledge of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances (natural and synthetic) is associated
with the actual process of destruction of the contraband?
(iii) Was any action taken against the person who should have
applied for permission to destroy the drugs or should have
destroyed and did not do so?
(iv) What are the steps taken at the time of destruction to
determine the nature and quantity of the substance being
661
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] I S.C.R.
A
destroyed?
(v) What are the steps taken by competent alllhorities 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
B
destruction?
c
D
E
F
G
(vi) 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.
(vii) If a facility is not available, where is the contraband
sent for destruction purposes? Under whose supervision and
what is the entire procedure thereof?
(viii) Is any record. electronic or othen<•ise prepared at the
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>
12.4. Judicial supervision
(i) 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?
(ii) JS 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?
(iii) 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 of such application?
(iv) What level officers including the judicial officers are
associated with the process of destruction?
(v) At what stages are the Magistrates/judicial officers/any
other officer of the court associated with seizure/storage/
H
destruction of drugs?
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.]
663
(vi) Are there any rules framed by the Court regarding its
A
supervisory role in enforcement of the NDPS Act as regards
seizure/storage/destruction of drugs?
(vii) What is the average time for completion of trial of NDPS
matters?"
4. In compliance with the above directions, reports have been
submitted by all the States except the States of Arunachal Pradesh,
Jammu and Kashmir, Dadar & Nagar Haveli, Lakshadweep, Nagaland
and Pondicherry. From a perusal of the reports so received the position
that emerges in regard to disposal/destruction of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substance qua each State· for the last I 0 years may be
summarised as under:
DETAILS OF SEIZURE AND DISPOSAL OF DRUGS
(STATEWISE)
I.
ANDHRA PRADESH
Item
Total
Quanti!x
Tgtal Quantity
Difference
.
Seized
(In
10
!!~strayed (in 10
years)
vears\
Ganja
2,20,977.191 Kg
39I0.70 Kg
217066.491 kg
(98.23%)
Opium
22.925 kg
0
22.925 Kg (I 00%)
Charas
6.5 kg
0
6.5 kg (JOO%)
Cocaine
851.0% kg
0
851.096 kg (I 00%)
_ Others
85.125 kg+ 103
0
'·
Capsules + 81
Injections 26
Amp
2.
ASSAM
(The Information pertains only to the period of 2010-2012)
Item
Total Quanti!l: Total Quantitv Difference
Seiz eel (In 10 Destrol'.ecl (in
years)
10:1'.ears}
Ganja
203.54 Kg
136Kg
67.54 (33.18%)
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
664
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2016] I S.C.R.
Heroin
.614 kg
0
.214 Kg
(34.853%)
Opium
30gms
0
30 !!!TIS {I 00%)
Others
755662
41472 Nos.
714190Nos.
(94.5%)
3.
BIHAR
Item
Total Quanti!l: Total Quantitt Difference
Seized (!n 10 Destrol'.ed (in
vears)
lOvears)
Ganja
45Kg
0
45 kg
Heroin
3.74 kg
0
3.74 kg
Charas
48.853 kg
0
48.853 kg
Poppy
100 kgs
0
100 kgs
Straws
Methqu
1676 kgs
0
1676 kgs
alone
Note:- No destruction of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances have taken place at Patna zonal unit.
4.
CHHATTISGARH
.!W!!.
Total
Quantit~ Total Quant it~
Di[ference
Seized
(In
IO
Destroyed (in 10
years)
years)
Ganja
1,03.622.140 kg
3281.570 kg
1,00,340 .57
Kg
(96.77%)
Cannabis
52478 (Nos)
380 (Nos)
52098 (Nos)
Plants
(92.7%)
Brown
3.120 kg
0
3.129 kg ( 100%)
Sugar
Opium
1.460 kg
0
1.460 kg ( 100%)
Opium
1558 pieces
0
1558 pieces
Ponov Plant
(100%)
Green
3600 kg
0
3600 kg ( 100%)
Opium Plant
UNION OF !NOIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.]
665
5.
CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE
A
Item
Total Quantity Total Quantity Difference
Seized (!n 10 Destroyed (in
vears)
10 years)
Opium
367.007kg
658.525 kg
Destroyed
more than
B
seized
Morphine
58.393 kg
190 kg+ 88930
58.203 kg
Pcs lni ections
(99.6%)
Heroine
1658.099 kg
739.687 kg
918.412kg
(55.3%)
Ganja
484124.056 kg
8,43,008.559
Destroyed
c
kg
more than
seized
Hashish
77350.076 kg
12298.578 kg
Destroyed
more than
seized
D
Cocaine
640.569 kg
0
640.569 kg
(100%)
6.
CHANDIGARH
Item
Total Quantity Total Quantity Difference
E
Seized (!n 10 Destroyed (in
vears\
lOvearsl
Contraband
By relevant
900.179 Kgs
2305 .444 Kgs
authorities
(71%)
3205.623 Kgs
Morphine
58.393 kg
\ 90kg + 88930
58.203 kg
F
Pcs Iniections
(99.6%)
Heroine
1658.099 kg
739.687 kg
918.412 kg
(55.3%)
Ganja
484124.056 kg
8,43,008.559
Destroyed
kg
more than
G
seized
Hashish
77350.076 kg
12298.578 kg
Destroyed
more than
seized
Cocaine
640.569 kg
0
640.569 kg
(l 00"/o)
H
666
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] l S.C.R.
7.
DELHI
•
Delhi has provided two responses. One response has been
provided by the NCB, Delhi and the other by the police heads
of each of the district.
•
The response by NCB, Delhi is as follows:-
Item
Total Quantity Total Quantity Difference
Seized (In 10
Destroyed (in
vears\
10 vears\
Contraband
8891.8373
680.376 kg
8211.4613
kg(92.34%)
•
The Response by the police heads are as follows:-
lilln
I2tal Quagtijy Il!tal Quantijy Qiffui:nce
~ized (In IQ
De~tr2yi:d (in
years)
10 years}
By
relevant
authorities
Contraband
52944.577 kg
32443.456 kg
20500.601
(Hashish,
(38.72%)
Cocaine,
Ganja,
Heroin etc.)
Contrabands
1020669
0
1020669
(Chemical
(100%)
Substances in
Tablets,
lniections)
8.
DAMAN AND DIU
The UT Daman and Diu has informed the Total quantity by way of a
detailed chart:
lli.!!!.
Total Quantity Total Quanti!Y
Difference
Seized (In 10 Destroyed (in
ll.!Wl
10 l'.earsj
By
relevant
authorities
Contraband
25.827 kgs
000 kgs
25.827 Kgs
(100%)
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.]
667
9 .
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
Item
Total
Quantitv Total Quanti~ Difference
Sei:red
{!n
10 Destroyed {in
years) By relevant 10 years}
authorities
Contraband
174185.687kg
2859.448 Kg
171326.23
9 198.3%)
10.
GUJARAT
• The Response of the state is divided into two parts.
•One has been provided by the office of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
• As per the said response the total amount of contraband seized
in 10 years are 28340.047 Kg. No division of the type has been
provided.
• The total destruction in the last IO years however is only 132.375 Kg
• The total amount of Contraband sti II in custody of the atrthorities is
28207.672 Kgs, i.e. 99.53% of the seized amount.
•The response of the NCB Zonal Unit is as follows:
Item
Total Quantity Total Ouantitv Difference
Seized {!n
10 Destroyed {in
vearS\
10 vearsl
Charas
1421.14 kg
15.056 kgs
1406.084 kg
(98.9%)
Opium
17.505 kg
0
17.505 kg
( 100%)
Brown Sugar 2.03 kg
0
2.03 kg
( 100%)
Heroin
3.066 kg
0 (981 gms of
3.066 kg
Heroin was
(100%)
destroyed in
2000, however
all the seizures
have been made
oost2003)
Others
3766.126 kg+
525 kgs
3241.126 kgs
299 ltrs. + 1022
(86.05%) +
Tablets
229 ltrs
( 100%)+
1022 Tablets
( 100%)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
668
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] I S.C.R.
A
11.
GOA
The UT Chandigarh has informed the Total quantity by way.of a
detailed chart:
Item
Total
Quantit:i: Total Quantit:i: Difference
Seized
!}n
10 Destro:i:ed {in
B
:i:ears)
By 10 :i:ears}
relevant
authorities
Contraband
548.746 kg.>.
000 kgs
548.7476
kgs ( 100"/o)
c
12.
HARYANA
Item
Total Quantit:i: Total Quantit:i: Difference
Seized {In 10 Destro:i:ed {in
vears\
10 vears\
Ganja
2604.077 kg
521.133 kg
2082.944 kg
(79%)
D
Charas
7252513 kg
533.46 kg
6719.053 kg
(92.64%)
Opium
1086387 kg
1972.860
Destroyed
more than
seized
Smack
8200.00 kg
4169.919 kg
4030.081 kg
E
(49.14%)
Heroine
1.046 kg
1.300 kg
Destroyed
more than
seized
F
Brown Sugar
2.001 kg
1.003 kg
998 kg
( 49.87°/o)
Cocaine
325 kg
0
.325 kg
( 100%\
13.
HIMAO-IALPRADESH
1l1e State ofHimachal Pradesh has infom1ed the Total quantity
G
b
f d
'l d 1
iyway o a etai e c 1art:
Item
TQl:al Quantit:i: Total Quantitx Differenci:
Seized (In 10 Destro:i:ed {in
vears\
10 vears)
Contraband
17026.714
1856.913
15169.801
H
(89.09%)
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJI.]
669
14
JHARKHAND
Item
Total
Quantity Total Q!!antity Difference
Seized (In
10 Destro:i:ed
(in
vears)
lOyears}
Ganja
1793.381 kg
0 (area of
1793.381 kg
cultivation has
(100%)
been destroved)
Opium
360.59 kg
0
360.59 kg
(100%)
Brown Sugar
1.576 kg
0
l.576 kg
(100%)
Heroine
546 kg
0
546 kg
(100%)
15.
KERALA
Item
Total
Quanti!}: Total Quanti!l; Difference
Seized
{In
10 Destro:i:ed
{in
years}
10 years)
Ganja
7588.543 Kg
2740.926 kg
4847.617kg
(63.88%)
Heroine
.536 kg
0
.536 kg
(100%)
Hashish
12.368 kg
0
12.368
(100%)
Char as
.063 kg
0
.063 kg
(100%)
Brown Sugar
8.432 kg
12.058 kg
Destroyed
more than
seized
Opium
23.697 kg
0
23.697 kg
(100%)
16.
KARNATAKA
•
The state of Karnataka divided its response in two parts. One is
seizure by Police and the Other is seizure by NCB
Item
Total
Quanti!Y Total QuantiJx Difference
Seized {In
10 Destro:i:ed
{in
vears)
10 vears)
Contraband
ByNCB
366.838 Kgs
OOOkgs
366.838
By relevant
Kgs(l00%)
authorities
12140.592
15151.041
27291.633 Kl!S
(55%)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
670
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2016) I S.C.R.
A
17.
MAHARASHTRA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Item
Total
Quanti!Y Total Quanti!Y Difference
Seized
(In
IO Destroyed
(in
vearsl
.
10 vearsl
Ganja
1,14.082 kg
8750 kg
1,14,074 kg
(92.33%)
Heroin
654 kg
228 kg
426 kg
(65.13%)
Charas
2364.\XJ kg
471.735
1893.165
(80.05%)
Opium
613.044 kg
47.135 kg
565.909 kg
(92.31%)
Cocaine
11.049 kg
0 kg
11.049 kg
(100%)
18
MANIPUR
Item
Total
Quantity Total Quanti!l' Difference
Seized
(In
10 Destro:yed
(in
years)
10 :years}
Heroin
37.534 kg.
12.498 kg
25.036 kg
(66.072%)
Ganja
45343.25kg
41963.389 kg
3379.861 kg
(Kindly reter
(7.45%)
to the Notel
Opium
233.985 kg
0
233.985 kg
(100%)
Hashish
3.05 kg
0
3.05 kg(I00%)
Note: The Total amount of Ganja seized post 2005 was 25913.225
kgs and the same is still lying with the authorities since the last
pretrial disposal in 2005.
19. MADHYA PRADESH
•
Madhya Pradesh has divided its response in two pat1s. One
is seizure by Police and the other is seizure by NCB.
Item
Tutal
Quanti!Y Total
Quantity Difference
Seized
{!n
IO
Destroi;~ (in lO m Ki:s
vears) In Kus
vears) In Kus
Contraband
By PoliceBy Police
By Police004376.528
61384.805
742991.723
Kgs (92%)
Destroyed
BYNCB
more than
348 kg
seized
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.]
671
A
20.
Ministr of Home Affairs NCB
Item
Total Quantity Total
Quan tit)'.
Difference
Seized
{In
10
Destroyed {in 10
)'.ears)
!'.ears)
Contraband
By relevant
B
authorities
44 76.482 kgs
5344.12 Kgs.
867.638
(16%)
21.
ORISSA
c
•
Orissa has divided its response in two parts. One is se.izure
by Pol ice and the Other is seizure by Excise Officials.
Item
Total Quan tit)'.
Total
Quan tit)'.
Difference
Seized {In
10 Destro:i:ed {in 10
years)
years)
D
Contraband
By Police
0.000
By Police88241.741 Kgs
88241.741
Kgs
Bv Excise
0.000
(100%)
34520.854 Kgs
By Excise
E
(100%)
34520.854
Kgs
(100%)
22.
PUNJAB
Item
Tutal Quantity Total
Quan tit)'.
Difference
F
Seized {In
10 Destroved (in lO
i:ears)
years)
Poppy Husk
8,93,948.452 kg
4,00,678.069 kg
4,93,270.3
83 kg
(55.°17%)
G
Onium
4936.031 ke
965.818 k!!
3970.213
kg
-
-
-
---·~ -- ---
-·---- . _(80.43%)
Smack
20045.293 kg
104.631 kg
19940.662
(99.47%)
H
672
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] I S.C.R.
A
23. RAJASIHAN
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
'Item
Tut al Quantity Total Quanti!:£ Difference
Seized {!n 10 Destroyed
(in
years)
IO years)
Brown Sugar
146.996 kg
23.381 kg
123.615 kg
(84.094%)
Heroine
173.216 kg
3.25 kg
169.966 kg
(98.12%\
Smack
275.246 kg
82.423 kg
192.823 kg
(70.05%)
Opium
6687.081 kg
2006.745 kg
4680.335 kg
(69.99%)
Charas
935.602 kg
1192.309
Destroyed
more than
seized
Ganja
176289.677 kg
2578.712 kg
174250.965
kg (98.84%)
Poppy Straw
99684.05 kgs
1.34,652.55 kg
Destroyed
more than
seized.
24. SIKKIM
Item
Total Quanti!v Total Quanti!Y Difference
Seized (!n
IO Destroyed
(in
years)
Bv IO years)
relevant
authorities
N-IO Capsure 9156
**
9156
( 100%)
Spasmo
277367
••
277367
Proxyvon
(100%)
Cansule
Corex/
3033
••
3033
Phensidylerec
(100%)
odex
Otllers
••
203.92gms .
**The State Governn1ent of Sikkim has replied that the destruction rt done as
per the orders of the Trial Court on the conclusion of Trial. However, no
details related to disposal has been provided.
UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.]
673
25.
TAMILNADU
A
Item
Total
Quan tine Total Quantit:y Difference
Seized
(!n
10 Destro:yed {in
vears)
10 vears)
Ganja(Dry
656778 kg
19366.98 kg
637411.02 kg
B
+Green)
(97.051%)
Charas
13 kg
I kg
12 kg
(92.30%)
Heroin
66.42 kg
66.425 kg
0
Cocaine
I kg
15.4 kg
Destroyed
more than
c
seized
Brown
0.015 kg
0
0.015 kg
Smmr
( 100%)
Opium
30.4 kg
l.738kg
29.262 kg
(96.25%)
Hash Oil
JO kg
I kg
9 kg(90%)
D
Tidigesic
I 3627 vials
4095 vials
9532 vials
in.i.
(69.94%)
Norphine
I 12 amps
0
112amps
( 100%)
Bosikka
9
0
9(100%)
Diazepam
9.085 kg+ 2706
4.5 I (kg or vial
E
vials
not sure)
Poppy
246.75 kg
125.05 kg
12l.7kg
Cap/Straws
(49.32%)
Avil
350 tabs+ 55 vials
0
350 tabs+ 55
vials
F
26.
TRIPURA
Item
Total
Quantitt Total Quantit:y Difference
Seized
(!n
10 Destro:yed {in
vears)
10 vears)
Ganja
9178.8
2642.5 kg
6536.3 kg
G
(71.21%)
Ganja Dust
436 kg
87 kgs
349 kgs
(80.04%)
~ H
674
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] I S.C.R.
A
27.