Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 1027 OF 2008

Union of India …Appellant

Versus

Sheo Shambhu Giri …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Chelameswar, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 359  

of  2003 of  the High Court  of  Patna,  the instant  appeal  is  

preferred by the Union of India.

2. By the judgment under appeal, three appeals came to  

be  preferred  by  the  three  different  accused  who  were  

1

Page 2

convicted  for  different  offences  under  the  Narcotic  Drugs  

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS  

Act”)  by the  Court  of  5th  Additional  District  and Sessions  

Judge, Mothari of East Champaran District in Excise Case No.  

31 of 2001 by its judgment dated 12th June, 2003. By the  

judgment under appeal, the conviction of all the appellants  

was set aside.  It is not very clear whether any appeals are  

preferred  against  the  acquittal  of  the  other  two  accused  

except the respondent herein.

3. The sole respondent along with two other accused was  

tried for offences under Sections 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act.  

The  trial  court  found  the  respondent  herein  guilty  of  an  

offence under Section 23 of the NDPS Act but found that the  

charge under Section 29 of  the Act  is  not  proved against  

him.  He  was,  therefore,  convicted  for  an  offence  under  

Section 23 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for  

10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh for an offence  

under Section 23 of the NDPS Act.  

2

Page 3

4. The High Court, allowed the appeal of the respondent  

and set aside his conviction under Section 23 of the NDPS  

Act. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-

“17.   So far as appellant Sheo Shambhu Giri of Cr. Appeal  No.  359  of  2003  is  concerned  he  has  also  assailed  his  conviction  on  many grounds  including  that  the  Ganja  was  recovered from his possession.   His submission was also that  though he was charged under sections 23 and 29 of the act but  he  was acquitted under Section 29 of  the  act  and was not  considered to be a part of conspiracy and admittedly he was  only a carrier at the instance of other persons.   As such his  punishment under section 23 of the Act is also not tenable in  the eye of law.   That apart  it  has been submitted that the  ingredients of section 23 of the Act is  not attracted in this  case because there is no evidence to prove that the Ganja was  imported  from foreign  land.    As  per  the  wording  of  the  section  there  must  be  import  of  the  contraband  to  attract  punishment under this section but the prosecution could not  prove that the Ganja was of foreign origin.   Even prosecution  could not prove whether the substance so seized was actually  Ganja  or  not  because  no  chemical  examination  report  has  been  produced  in  the  court  in  original  form  neither  the  chemical examiner was examined to prove them.   It has also  been submitted that the mandatory provision of, sections 42,  52  and  57 of  the  act  has  not  been  strictly  complied  with.  That  apart  it  has  also  been  submitted  that  there  is  no  independent  witness  to  support  the  recovery  of  contraband  and  the  prosecution  failed  to  examine  them.    Only  independent witness is a witness to Panchnama (Ext. 18)”

5. Dr. Ashok Dhamija, learned counsel appearing for the  

appellant  submitted  that  the  High  Court  grossly  erred  in  

coming to the conclusion that in the absence of proof that  

the  Ganja allegedly  seized  from  the  custody  of  the  

3

Page 4

respondent is of foreign origin, Section 23 of the NDPS Act is  

not attracted.  

6. The learned counsel further assailed the conclusion of  

the High Court that the prosecution could not prove that the  

material seized from the respondent was ganja.    

7. On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondent  submitted  that  Section  23  of  the  NDPS  Act  

creates three offences and they are; (i) import into India, (ii)  

Export out of India;  and (iii)  Transhipment of any narcotic  

drug or psychotropic substance.    If  any one of the three  

activities is undertaken in contravention of any one of the  

provisions  of  the Act  or  the Rules  made thereunder  or  in  

contravention of  an order made or condition of licence or  

permit granted or certificate or authorization issued either  

under the Act  or the Rules.   The explanation “tranships”  

occurring under Section 23 must necessarily be understood  

in  the  context  of  the  scheme  of  the  Section  and  the  

preceding expressions of “import into India” and “export out  

4

Page 5

of India” to mean only transhipment for the purpose of either  

import into India or export out of India.   The learned counsel  

further submitted that the High Court rightly concluded in  

the absence of any proof that the respondent was carrying  

contraband either in the course of import into India or export  

out of India, section 23 is not attracted.

8. We agree with the submission made by the respondent  

on  the  construction  of  Section  23  of  the  NDPS  Act,  the  

expression “tranships” occurring therein must necessarily be  

understood  as  suggested  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondent.    There is  yet  another reason apart from the  

construction of the language of Section 23 which compels us  

to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for  

the  respondent.     Section  9(1)(a)(vii)  also  employs  the  

expression transhipment.   Section 9(1) reads as follows;  

“9. Power of Central Government to permit, control and  regulate.  -(1)  Subject  to  the  provisions  of  section  8,  the  Central Government may, by rules-  

(a) permit and regulate-  (i)  the  cultivation,  or  gathering  of  any  portion  (such  cultivation  or  gathering  being  only  on  account  of  the  

5

Page 6

Central  Government)  of  coca  plant,  or  the  production,  possession,  sale,  purchase,  transport,  import  inter-State,  export inter-State, use or consumption of coca leaves;  (ii) the cultivation (such cultivation being only on account  of Central Government) of the opium poppy;  (iii)  the  production  and  manufacture  of  opium  and  production of poppy straw;  (iv)  the  sale  of  opium  and  opium  derivatives  from  the  Central Government factories for export from India or sale  to State Government or to manufacturing chemists;  (v)  the  manufacture  of  manufactured  drugs  (other,  than  prepared  opium)  but  not  including  manufacture  of  medicinal  opium  or  any  preparation  containing  any  manufactured  drug  from  materials  which  the  maker  is  lawfully entitled to possess;  (vi)  the  manufacture,  possession,  transport import  inter- State, export inter-State, sale, purchase, consumption or use  of psychotropic substances;  (vii)  the  import  into  India  and  export  from  India  and  transhipment of  narcotic  drugs  and  psychotropic  substances;  (b) prescribe any other matter requisite to render effective  the  control  of  the  Central  Government  over  any  of  the  matters specified in clause (a)”

9. It can be seen from the language of the Section that the  

Central Government is authorized to make rules which may  

permit  and  regulate  various  activities  such  as  cultivation,  

gathering, production, possession, sale, transport, inter state  

import  or  export  of  various  substances  like  coca  leaves,  

poppy straw, opium poppy and opium derivatives etc., while  

the Parliament used the expression transport in the context  

of  inter-state  import  or  export  of  such  material  in  sub-

6

Page 7

Section  1(a)(vi),  in  the  context  of  importing  to  India  and  

export  out  of  India,  Parliament  employed  the  expression  

transhipment in Section 9(i)(a)(vii).  

10. Therefore,  the  High  Court  rightly  concluded  that  the  

conviction of the respondent under Section 23 of the NDPS  

Act cannot be sustained.   We see no reason to interfere with  

the same.    

11. In view of such conclusion, we do not deem it necessary  

to examine the correctness of other conclusions recorded by  

the High Court for acquitting the respondents.   The appeal  

is, therefore, dismissed.

………………………………J. ( Dr. B.S. Chauhan )

………………………………J. ( J. Chelameswar )

New Delhi; March 25, 2014

7