# M/S. INDIAN CHEMICAL & PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1966] 2 S.C.R. 110
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-s-indian-chemical-pharmaceutical-works-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-3678
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

•
110
M/S. INDIAN CHEMICAL & PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS
A
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
October 1; 1965
[P.
B.
GAJENDRAGADKAR,
C.J., K.
N.
WANCHOO,
B
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.]
The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Chloral Hydrate
(Chloral)
Rules 1962-Validity of.
The appellant was a manufacturer of drugs, (including chloral hydrate)
in Hyderabad. In 1962, the State of Andhra Pradesh issued the Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Chloral Hydrate (Chloral) Rules with respect
C
to manufacture, possession, sale import, export and transport of chloral
hydrate under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Intoxicating Drugs
Act of 1333 Fasli, as amended by the Hyderabad Opium and Intoxicating
Drugs (Amendment) Act of 1953. The Rules provided that the manufacture of chloral hydrate shall be in accordance wi'h the conditions of a
licence granted by the Excise Commissioner on payment of the excise
duty of Rs. 500 per annum. The appellant refused to .take licence and
challenged the validity of the Rules by a writ petition, but the High Court
dismissed the petition.,
In appeal to this Court, the appellant ccntended that (i) the 1333 F
Act had been repealed in toto by the introduction into the State of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 and the Drugs Act 1940, and therefore .. there
was no power in the Hyderabad legislature to amend the 1333-F Act by
the 1953 Act, and in consequence; there was no law in force 011 the
basis of which the Rules could be promulgated in 1962; and (ii) even if
the Act was not repealed, the Rules were not within tho powers conferred
by the 1333-F Act as amended in 1953, as chloral hydrate was not a
narcotic or narcotic drug within the meaning of item 51, List II of the 7th
Schedule to the Constitution.
D
E
HELD : The 1333-F Act continued in existence in so far as it dealt
with collection of duties of excioe on substances covered by it and it
could therefore be amended by .the 1953 Act. [117 FJ
F
The 1333-F Act was in the nature of an excise Act and provided for
licences and collection of duties of excise and made provisio11s incidental
thereto. It applied to the intoxicating drugs mentioned therein and other
intoxicating drugs which might be notified by the Government. The Act
continued in force in Hyderabad after 26th January 1950. In 1950, the
Dangerons Drugs Act w"' applied by Parliament, to
Hyderabad,
by
Cen'ral Act 33 of 1950. This Act however, is not an Act imposing duties
G
of excise. Consequently., it could not affect that part of the 1333-F Act
which dealt with the grant of licences, and collection of duties of excise.
Further, as a result of s. 39(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act dealing with
the saving of local and special laws and entry 51 of List II, the introduction
of the Act in Hyderabad did not result in complete effacement of the 1333-F,
Act. It remained alive with respect to substances which might be ·notified
as intoxicating drugs under the 1333-F Act. If there was any such notiH
fication before 1950, that notification would be valid and the Act would
apply to it. If there was no such notification, th-e Act would remain on the
statute book as a conditional statute under which a notification could be
Jssued. {114 G-H; 115 E-F; 116 A-CJ
f' c
~!' -
-
A
B
c
D
E
INDIAN CHEMICAL V. STATE (Wanchoo, J.)
I 11
The Drugs Act was extended to Hyderabad by Central Act 3 of 1951.
This Act is mainly concerned with the standard and quality of drugs
manufactured and therefore controls the manufacture, sale and distribution
of drugs.
H has also nothing '10 do with duties of excioo and with their
imposition on narcotics and narcotic. drugs.
Therefore, the fact that this
Act was introduced into Hyderabad in 1951 would not affect in any way
that part of the 1333-F Act which dealt with collection of. excise duties
and provided for licences in that connection, as such duties can be imposed
only by the State legislature under item 51 of List II. Hence, the 1333-F
Act in so far as it deals with the collection of d

## Text

•
110
M/S. INDIAN CHEMICAL & PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS
A
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
October 1; 1965
[P.
B.
GAJENDRAGADKAR,
C.J., K.
N.
WANCHOO,
B
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.]
The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Chloral Hydrate
(Chloral)
Rules 1962-Validity of.
The appellant was a manufacturer of drugs, (including chloral hydrate)
in Hyderabad. In 1962, the State of Andhra Pradesh issued the Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Chloral Hydrate (Chloral) Rules with respect
C
to manufacture, possession, sale import, export and transport of chloral
hydrate under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Intoxicating Drugs
Act of 1333 Fasli, as amended by the Hyderabad Opium and Intoxicating
Drugs (Amendment) Act of 1953. The Rules provided that the manufacture of chloral hydrate shall be in accordance wi'h the conditions of a
licence granted by the Excise Commissioner on payment of the excise
duty of Rs. 500 per annum. The appellant refused to .take licence and
challenged the validity of the Rules by a writ petition, but the High Court
dismissed the petition.,
In appeal to this Court, the appellant ccntended that (i) the 1333 F
Act had been repealed in toto by the introduction into the State of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 and the Drugs Act 1940, and therefore .. there
was no power in the Hyderabad legislature to amend the 1333-F Act by
the 1953 Act, and in consequence; there was no law in force 011 the
basis of which the Rules could be promulgated in 1962; and (ii) even if
the Act was not repealed, the Rules were not within tho powers conferred
by the 1333-F Act as amended in 1953, as chloral hydrate was not a
narcotic or narcotic drug within the meaning of item 51, List II of the 7th
Schedule to the Constitution.
D
E
HELD : The 1333-F Act continued in existence in so far as it dealt
with collection of duties of excioe on substances covered by it and it
could therefore be amended by .the 1953 Act. [117 FJ
F
The 1333-F Act was in the nature of an excise Act and provided for
licences and collection of duties of excise and made provisio11s incidental
thereto. It applied to the intoxicating drugs mentioned therein and other
intoxicating drugs which might be notified by the Government. The Act
continued in force in Hyderabad after 26th January 1950. In 1950, the
Dangerons Drugs Act w"' applied by Parliament, to
Hyderabad,
by
Cen'ral Act 33 of 1950. This Act however, is not an Act imposing duties
G
of excise. Consequently., it could not affect that part of the 1333-F Act
which dealt with the grant of licences, and collection of duties of excise.
Further, as a result of s. 39(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act dealing with
the saving of local and special laws and entry 51 of List II, the introduction
of the Act in Hyderabad did not result in complete effacement of the 1333-F,
Act. It remained alive with respect to substances which might be ·notified
as intoxicating drugs under the 1333-F Act. If there was any such notiH
fication before 1950, that notification would be valid and the Act would
apply to it. If there was no such notification, th-e Act would remain on the
statute book as a conditional statute under which a notification could be
Jssued. {114 G-H; 115 E-F; 116 A-CJ
f' c
~!' -
-
A
B
c
D
E
INDIAN CHEMICAL V. STATE (Wanchoo, J.)
I 11
The Drugs Act was extended to Hyderabad by Central Act 3 of 1951.
This Act is mainly concerned with the standard and quality of drugs
manufactured and therefore controls the manufacture, sale and distribution
of drugs.
H has also nothing '10 do with duties of excioo and with their
imposition on narcotics and narcotic. drugs.
Therefore, the fact that this
Act was introduced into Hyderabad in 1951 would not affect in any way
that part of the 1333-F Act which dealt with collection of. excise duties
and provided for licences in that connection, as such duties can be imposed
only by the State legislature under item 51 of List II. Hence, the 1333-F
Act in so far as it deals with the collection of duties of excise on anv drugs
which are narcotics or narcotic drugs would remain alive 10 that ·extent.
[116 D-G; 117 D-Fl
(ii) Narcotic is a .substance which in small doses relieves pain and
produces sleep and since it was admitted by the appellant ~hat chloral
hydrate is hypnotic and sedath·e, it would be a narcotic within the meaning of entry 51 of List II.
The statement in the respondents' affidavit
that it did not contain narcotic or a narcotic drug was only made in
reply to the appellants allegation that chloral hydrate was a medicinal preparation. All that was intended by the State by using those words was
that chloral hydrate did not contain any narcotic drug or narcotic is
defined in the Medic;nal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act,
1955.
Chloral hydrate has also an intoxicating effect when mixed with
liquor and so i• an intoxicating drug within the meaning of the Amendment Act. fl19 A-F]
The 1333-F Act after the amendment of !953 is also an excise Act
and defines intoxicating drugs to mean inter alia any intoxicating and narcotic substan~ which the Government may by notification declare to be
an intoxicating drug. [118 A-Bl
Since chloral hydrate is an intoxica~ing and narcotic substance it cou1d
be notified under the Amendment Act. It would be liable to excise duty
and therefore the Rules could be framed with respect to its control, and
the appellant could be asked to take out a licence and pay excise duty
on the manufacture thereof. [118 D-F]
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 649 of
1964.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment. and order dated
F March 30, l 963 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No.
1061 of 1962.
G
H
Arun B. Saharya and Sardar Bahadur, for the appellant.
P. Ram Reddy and T. V. R. Tatachari, for respondent No.
No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Wanchoo, J.
This is an appeal by special leave ·against the
judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appellant manufactures drugs in Hyderabad and among the drugs manufactured
by it is chloral hydrate. In September 1962, the State of Andhra
Pradesh issued rules called the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Chloral Hydrate (Chloral) Rules, 1962 with respect to manufacture, possession, sale, import, export and transport of chloral hyd-
112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
rate (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). We shall refer to the
A
Rules in detail later;~ut in brief they provide that the manufacture
of chloral hydrate shall take place only in accordance with the
conditions of a licence granted by the Excise Commissioner and
oniy on payment of excise duty of Rs. 500/- per annum.
The
Rules also provide for possession, import, export, sale and transport of chloral hydrate. In consequence of the issue of the Rules,
B
the appellant was called upon to take out a licence and pay the
necessary excise duty.
The appellant refused to do so and in
November 1962 filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging
inter a/ia the validity of the Rules. It may be mentioned that the
Rules were issued under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Intoxicating Drugs Act, No. IV of 1333 Fasli, (hereinafter referred
C
-to as the 1333-F Act) as amended by the Hyderabad Opium and
Intoxicating Drugs (Amendment) Act, No. XXII of 1953.
The main contention of the appellant in the High Court was
that the 1333-F Act had been repealed in toto on the introduction
of the Dangerous Drugs. Act, No. 2 of 1930 by the Opium and
D
Revenue Laws (Extension of application) Act, No. 33 of 1950,
and of the Drugs Act, No. 23 of 1940 by the Part B States (Laws)
Act, No. III of 1951, and therefore there was no power in the
Hyderabad legislature to amend it by Act 22 of 1953. In consequence there was no law in force on the basis of which the Rules
could be promulgated in 1962. Secondly, it was contended that E
,
even if the 1333-F Act did not stand repealed as above, the Rules
-
frameJ by the State of Andhra Pradesh in 1962 with respect to
chloral hydrate were not within the powers conferred by the 1333-F
Act as amended in 1953, as chloral hydrate was not a narcotic or
narcotic drug and was not covered by item 51 of List II of the F
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
The petition was opposed on behalf of the State, and it contended that there was no repeal of the 1333-F Act by the introduction of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1930 and the Drugs Act, 1940,
lU!d consequently the amendment of the 1333-F Act by the HyderaG
bad Act No. 22 of 1953 was good, and the 1333-F Act as amended was in force in 1962 when the Rules were framed. It was
further contended that the Rules were intra vires the 1333-F Act
as amended in 1953 as chloral hydrate was a. narcotic and an in-
~
toxicating drug.
The High Court repelled the contentions raised on behalf of
H
the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. The appellant -then
applied for a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court, which was
INDIAN CHEMICAL v. STATE (Wanchoo, J.)
113
A refused. It then obtained special leave from this Court; and that
is how the matter has come before us.
Before we consider the points raised in the High Court which
have also been raised before us, we should like to refer to certain
provisions in the three legislative Lists in the Seventh Schedule to
B the Constitution dealing with various aspects that arise in this case.
The first of these provisions is item 59, List I, which deals with
"cultivation, manufacture, and sale for export, of opium". Then
there are twg items in List II, item 8 which deals with "intoxicating
liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession,
transport and sale of intoxicating liquors" and item 51 which deals
<:
with "duties of excise on the following goods manufactnrcd or
produced in the State ...... :-(a) alcoholic liquors for human
consumption; (b) opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs
and narcotics; bnt not including medicinal and toilet preparations
containing alcohol or any substance included in sub-paragraph
(b) of this entry".
Lastly reference may be made to item 19
D of List Ill, whicb deals with "drugs and poisons, subject to the
provisions of entry 59 of List I with respect to opium".
It will be seen from a perusal of these entries that a substance
may fall in a number of them.
For example, opium falls under
E
item 59 of List I for certain purposes mentioned therein but also
falls in item 51 of List II for the purpose .of duties of excise thereon
and for such control as may be required for the purpose of collecting the duties of excise. Thus for the purpose of cultivation and
manufacture opium is exclu_sively a Union subject but for the purpose of duties of excise it is an exclusive State subject. Take anF
other substance like chloral hydrate with which we are concerned
in the prese~t appeal. It is undoubtedly a drug .and therefore fall~
under item 19 of List ill. Drugs being in the Concurrent List
both the Union and the States can legislate thereon. There are
two Central Acts which deals with drugs, namely, the Dangerous
Drugs Act 1930 and the Drugs Act, 1940. Now a substance may
G fall under the Dangerous Drugs Act if it is so defined there. It
may also fall under the Drugs Act and may be subject to its provisions if so indicated therein. But at the same time a substa11ce
which is a drug may also fall under item 51 of List II if it is a narcotic or is a narcotic drug.
Even intoxicating liquor which falls
under entry 8 of List II as well as under entry 51 of List II may
H
fall under entry 19 of List III if it is a drug. This will show that
even if a substance is governed by the Dangerous Drugs Act and
the Drugs Act it may well ~e liable to duties of excise under entry
114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.CR.
51_ of List II a_nd of such control as is incidental thereio. It is in
A.
this background that we have to consider the points raised on behalf
of the appellant.
We now come to the first point raised on behalf of the appellant,
namely, wlrether the 1333-F Act survived the introduction of the
&
Dangerous .Drugs Act and the Drugs Act in the State of Hyderabad. The 1333-F Act was in force in Ryderabad State as it was
before the Constitution from 1924.
At that time the State of
Hyderabad was a sovereign State and had full power to deal with
all subjects now contained in Lists I, II and III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution subject of course to British paramountcy c
and effect thereof on the sovereignty of the Hyderabad State. The
1333-F Act dealt with opium and intoxicating drugs. Intoxicating
drugs were defined in this Act as meaning "ganja, bhang, charas.
cocaine and all such things which are prepared therefrom and will
also include such intoxicating substances which the Government
may, by gazette notification, include in it, (s. 2)". This definition
I>
shows that besides the four substances mentioned therein, intoxicating drugs could include other substances if a notification was
issued by the Government in that behalf. We do not know as a
fact whether any notification was issued after 1924 and before the
Constitution came into force under this provision. But in any case
the 1333-F Act applied not only to the four substances mentioned
E
therein but also to others which might be notified.
The 1333-F
Act further provided that "save as authorised under this Act or
rules thereunder, no person shall possess .... sell, manufacture,
opium or intoxicating drug, (s. 4)". The Government was also
given the power to make rules regarding administration and supervision, grant of licences and collection of duties of excise, (s. 5)".
F
The 1333-F Act also provided for punishment for the contravention
of the Act and the Rules and for confiscation under certain circumstances, (ss. 7 to 11).
It gave powers to excise officers for
search of houses and arrest of accused persons, (s. 16). It also
provided for other powers for such officers, (s. 17). There were
other provisions therein to which it is unnecessary to refer. It will
G
be seen from this brief analysis of the 1333-F Act that it was in
the nature of an excise Act and provided for licences and collection
of duties of excise and made provisions incidental thereto. We have
already said that this Act applied not only to opium and the four
intoxicating drugs mentioned therein but also to other substances
which might be notified thereunder. It continued in force in the
H
Part B State of Hyderabad after the Constitution came into force
in January 1950.
INDIAN CHEMICAL v. STATE (Wanchoo, J.)
115
A
In 1950, Parliament applied the Opium Act (No. 13 of 1857),
the Opium Act (1 of 1878) and the Dangerous Drugs Act (No. 2
of 1930) to the Part B State of Hyderabad by Central Act 33 of
of 1950. Section 4 of this Act inter alia provided that if immediately before the commencement of this Act there was in force
in any Part B State, other than Jammu and Kashmir, any law·
B corresponding to any of the Acts specified therein, that Jaw would
upon the commencement of this Act, stand repealed.
c
D
E
G
The Dangerous Drugs Act deals with coca-leaf, coca derivative,
hemp including bhang, siddhi, ganja, charas, medicinal hemp,
opinm and opium derivative. It also gave power to Central Government to notify any other narcotic substance as a manufactured
drug under certain circumstances. The Dangerous Drugs Act thus
deals, among others, with coca-leaf, hemp, opium and all manufactured drugs therefrom, though there is power in the Central Government to notify other substances. The Act further provides for
prohibition and control of these drngs. Furthers. 39(1) lays down
that "nothing in this Act or in the rules made thereunder shall affect
the validity of any Provincial Act or an: Act of any State Legislature for the time being in force, or of any rule made thereunder,
which imposes any restriction not imposed by or under this Act,
or imposes a restriction greater in degree than a corresponding
restriction imposed by or under this Act, on the consumption of
or traffic in any dangerous drug within India". It will be seen that
the Dangerous Drugs Act provides for prohibition or control,
creates offences, provides for penalties and lays down procedure in
that behalf. It is not an Act imposing duties of excise. Therefore,
when this Act deals with hemp. which includes ganja, bhang and
charas, it does not deal with that aspect of hemp which is concerned with the imposition and collection of duties of excise on it
and with incidental provisions in that behalf. We have already said
that a substance can come both under the Dangerous Drugs Act
as well as imder the Drugs Act and may also be liable to duties
of excise under entry 51 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. The
fact that hemp is defined as a dangerous drug under this Act would
not therefore in any way affect any law dealing with the imposition
and collection of duties of excise on hemp. Consequently when the
Dangerous Drugs Act was introduced in the Part B State of Hyderabad in 1950, it could not affect that part of the 1333-F Act which
dealt with ganja, bhang and charas, as intoxicating drugs and pro-
• vided for grant of licences and collection of duties of excise thereon.
H Similarly, with the introduction of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the
operation of the l.333-F Act could not be affected with respect
even_ to opium insofar as that Act dealt with grant of licence and
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
collection of duties of excise thereon, though insofar as it dealt
A
with manufacture of opium which comes under entry 59 of List I,
there was a repeal of t!ie provisions relating to manufacture contained in the 1333-F Act and the Rules.
We are therefore of
opinion that the introduction of the Dangerous Drugs Act in the
Part B State of Hyderabad in 1950 did not result in complete
.effacement of the 1333-F Act. It remained alive even so far as
B
opium, charas, bhang and ganja were concerned for the purpose
of collection of duties of excise thereon. It also remained alive
with respect to other substances which might be notified as intoxicating drugs under the 1333-F Act. If there was any such notification between 1924 and 1950 that notification would remain valid
and the 13 3 3-F Act would apply to it. If there was no such notiC
fication, the 1333-F Act would remain on the statute book as a
·conditional statute under which a notification in respect of any
·substance could be issued.
The argument that the introduction
-of the Dangerous Drugs Act in 1950 completely repealed the 1333F Act has ·no force and must fail.
Then we come to the Drugs Act of 1940 which was extended
to the Part B State of Hyderabad by the Central Act III of 1951.
Section 6 of the 1951-Act provides that "if immediately before
D
the appointed day, there is in force in any Part B State any law
corresponding to any of the Acts or Ordinances now extended to E
that State, that law shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in
this Act, stand repealed". It is not in dispute that chloral hydrate
was controlled under the Drugs Act, and the argument on behalf
of the appellant is that on the coming into force of the Drugs Act,
the 1333-F Act so far as it applied to intoxicating drugs which
could be notified thereunder, must be deemed to have been rel"
pealed. We are of opinion that there is no force in this argument
either.
The Drugs Act is mainly concerned with standard and
-quality of drugs manufactured in this country and therefore con- .
trols the manufacture, sale and distribution of drugs. It has nothing
to do with duties of excise and with their imposition on narcotics
and narcotic drugs. We have already indicated that narcotics and
G
narcotic drugs are to be found in entry 51 of List II, which provides
for imposition of duties of excise on such drugs. If a substance is
a narcotic drug, it is liable to be controlled under the Drugs Act
as a drug. But at the same time it is liable to duties of excise
under entry 51 of List II, and such duties can be imposed only by
the State legislature. Further the State legislature will have power
H
to enact necessary provisions for the imposition and collection of
-duties of excise and for all incidental matters which might be neces-
INDIAN CHEMICAL v. STATE (Wanchoo, J.)
I 17
A sary for such imposition and collection. The fact that the Drugs
Act was introduced in the Part B State of Hyderabad in 1951
would not therefore affect in any way that part of the 1333-F Act
which dealt with collection of duties of excise and provided for
licences in that connection. As we have said before, the 1333-F
Act is more in the nature of an excise Act while the Drugs Act
B has nothing to do with the collection of duties of excise. Further
s. 2 of the Drugs Act specifically provides that "the provisions of
this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Danp;.
gerons Drugs Act, 1930, and any other law for the time being in
force." Therefore even ifs. 6 of the Central Act ill of 1951 can
be said to have repealed ariy provision of the 1333-F Act which is
<:
concerned with matters other than collection of duties of excise
thereunder, that will not affect the later amendment made in the
1333-F Act by the Hyderabad Act No. 22 of 1953, for that amendment will be treated in addition to the provisions of the Drug5 Act
so long as the 1333-F Act was not completely dead before the
Hyderabad Act No. 22 of 1953 was passed. We have already said
D when dealing with the Dangerous Drugs Act that th() introduction
of that Act could not be said to have completely repealed the 1333F Act which dealt with matters not covered by the Dangerous
Drugs Act at all, (namely, collection of duties of excise and matters incidental thereto). The same in our opinion applies to the
E
Drugs Act which did not deal at all with the collection of duties
of excise on drugs covered by it. Therefore the 1333-F Act insofar
)...
as it deals with the collection of duties of excise on any drugs which
are narcotics or narcotic drugs would remain alive to that extent.
There can be no doubt therefore that the 1333-F Act continued in
existence so far as it dealt with collection of duties of excise on subF stances covered by it and it could therefore be amended by Hyderabad Act No. 22 of 1953.
This brings us to the second point raised in the present appeal,
namely, that even if the 1333-F Act had not been completely repealed by the introduction of the Dangerous Drugs Act and the
G Drugs Act and could be properly amended by the Hyderabad Act
of 1953, the Rules were not within the power conferred by the Act.
For that purpose we have to look at the 1333-F Act as it stands
after the amendment of 1953. The amended Act defines "intoxicating drugs" to mean (i) Indian hemp illc!uding all forms known as
bhang, sendhi or ganja, (ii) charas, (iii) any mixture of the above or
H any drink prepared therefrom, and (iv) any other intoxicating and
narcotic substance which the Government may by notificatiin dec-
·Jare to be an intoxicating drug, snch substance not being opium,
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
coca leaf or a manufactured drug as defined in s. 2 of the DangerA
·ous Drugs Act. . The amended Act is also clearly an excise Act
as will be clear from the definition of "intoxicating drugs revenue"
in s. 2(2) which means revenue from any duty, fee, tax, fine or
confiscation imposed or ordered under the provisions of this Act.
It was therefore open to the State Government to declare by notification any substance as an intoxicating drug within the meaning
B
of the Act provided it was an intoxicating and narcotic substance,
If such a declaration is made, the substance will be liable to excise
duty under the amended Act and the Rules framed thereunder and
will be liable to such incidental control as may be necessary for
the collection of duties. Further, drugs being in the Concurrent
List, the provisions of the 1953 amendment Act will also be a law
C
under item 19 of List III and will be .in addition to the Drugs Act
of 1940 by virtue of s. 2 thereof.
Now it appears that chloral
hydrate has been notified by the Government of Andhra Pradesh
as ·an intoxicating dmg within the meaning of the amended Act.
It was thereafter that the Rules were framed. The Rules provide
D
for the manufacture of chloral hydrate under a licence and for payment of duties of excise of Rs. 500 per year on such manufacture.
They also provide for possession, sale, import, export and transport.
If chloral hydrate is a narcotic drug or a narcotic within the meaning of entry 51 of List II of the Seventh Schedule and is an intoxicating drug and narcotic substance within the meaning of s. 2(1) (iv)
E
of the Amended Act, it could be notified under the amended Act
and on such notification it would be liable to excise duty and to
such incidental control as may be necessary for the purpose of collection of excise duty. We are in the present case mainly concerned
with the grant of licence and imposition of.excise duty of Rs. 500/-
per annum. If chloral hydrate is an intoxicating and narcotic subF
stance, the Rules could be framed with respect to its control and
the appellant could be asked to take out a ·licence and pay excise
duty on the manufacture thereof, even though chloral hydrate may
be a drug which is controlled under the Drugs Act.
The case of the State Government in this connection is that
G
chloral hydrate is a narcotic drug or a narcotic within the meaning
of entry 51 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. Its further case is
that it increases intoxication if mixed with liquor and that it is
being produced in large quantities in order that it may be mixed
with liquor.
That is the reason why the State has framed the
Rules to cCJlltrol the production of chloral hydrate. The appellant
H
in its writ petition admitted that chloral hydrate was used in small
doses as a hypnotic and sedative. Now the dictionary meaning of
•
INDIAN .CHEMICAL v. STATE (Wanchoo, !.)
119
A the word "narcotic" is a substance which relieves pain, produces
sleep, and in large doses brings on stupor, coma, and even death,
as opium, hemlock, alchohol etc. Obviously, therefore, if chloral
hydrate is hypnptic and sedative as admitted by the appellant, it
· would be a narcotic. The appellant however relies on the statement
in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State to show that chloral
B ,hydrate is not a narcotic or a narcotic drug within the meaning of
entry 51 of List II, for if it is not a narcotic or a narcotic drug within
that meaning no duty of excise can be imposed by the State legislature thereon.
The part of the affidavit on behalf of the State
relied upon by the appellant was dealing with a vague allegation of
the appellant that chloral hydrate was a medicinal preparation. In
C that connection it was submitted on behalf of the State that chloral
hydrate was not a medicinal or toiJet preparation coming within the
definition of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties)
Act, 16 of 1955 "as this substance.in a finished form does not contain either alcohol, opium, Indian hemp or other narcotic drug or
narcotics". These last words were taken from the schedule to the
D
Act of 1955 which mentions any medicinal preparation not containing alcohol but containing opium, Indian hemp or other narcotic
drug or narcotic. In the 1955-Act narcotic drug or narcotic has
been defined as meaning a substance (other than alcohol) which
when swallowed or inhaled by, or injected into, a human being
E induces drowsiness, sleep, stupefaction or insensibility in the human
being and whic.h is a dangerous drug within the meaning of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930.
Obviously, therefore, the words·
·"narcotic drug" and "narcotic" used in the 1955-Act have a special ·
meaning and this was all that was intended when in the affidavit filed
by the State these words were used. But all narcotics or narcotic
F drugs are not covered by the Dangerous Drugs Act and there can
be narc.;tics and narcotic drugs which are not covered by the
· Dangerous Drugs Act.
There can be no other conclusion on the
evidence in the present case than that chloral hydrate is a narcotic
or a narcotic drug within the meaning of entry 51 of List II of the
Seventh Schedule. It also has intoxicating effect when mixed with
G liquor and so is an intoxicating drug within the meaning of the
amended Act.
The'appellant also relies on the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, No. 16 of 1955, in this Court. It is true
that the appellant stated in its writ petition that it was holding a
licence under the 1955-Act; but there was no clear averment in the
H
petition that chloral hydrate was being manufactured as a medicinal
preparation under the 1955-Act. The licence which has been produced shows that chloral hydrate is being manufactured under the
120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
Drugs Act and the rules framed thereunder.
Further the judgA
ment of the High Court shows that no argument was raised before it
to the effect that chloral hydrate was a medicinal preparation under
the 1955-Act. In the circumstances we are not prepared to allow
the appellant to raise this point for the first time before us, even
though the~e was some kind of denial on this point by the State
Government in its affidavit to which we have already referred.
In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with casts.
Appeal dismissed.
.
B
-