UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHANLAL & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this appeal came up for hearing before us on 11th April, 2012, it was contended by learned counsel for the appellant -Union of India that Standing Order No.1 of 1989 dated 13th 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 23rd 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 3rd 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 also noted a report published in the timesofindia.indiatimes.com under the heading "Bathinda's police stores bursting at seams with seized narcotics" from which it appeared that large quantities of seized drugs had accumulated over the years including opium, poppy husk, charas etc. apart from modern 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 borders. 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 3rd July, 2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.652 of 2012 this Court directed 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 forwarded 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 Indian 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: