LAWS(MAD)-2019-5-190

SHRI A. M. MANIKANDAN Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

Decided On May 08, 2019
Shri A. M. Manikandan Appellant
V/S
The Intelligence Officer Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 7/7/2018, for an offence under sec. 8(c) r/w Sec. 21, 23, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act 1985), on the file of the respondent Police seeks bail.

(2.) Based on the specific information, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai stopped a consignment which is covered under Shipping Bill No.5963056 dtd. 02/07/2018 filed by M/s.AMM Exports and Imports and they seized ESKUF bottles [320 nos] weighing 32,000 ml and Codeine Sulfate tablets [24500 tablets] weighing 2817.50 grams which were attempted to be exported in the guise of ayurvedic medicines along with cover goods which was in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act r/w the Customs Act. The seizure was effected on 6/7/2018. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Sec. 67 of the NDPS Act before the Intelligence Officer and he is alleged to have admitted that the seized quantity of contraband was meant for export to Malaysia to one Sudakar who is having a shop at Malaysia and that for the last five years, the petitioner had exported around 100 shipments of Ayurvedic and English medicines to Malaysia.

(3.) Codeine is said to be the derivative of Opium and Codeine Sulphate is a Narcotic drug covered under the provisions of the NDPS Act, and it appears at serial No.28 of the Schedule. It requires proper license/authorisation from the Narcotic Commissioner for export out of India. It is alleged that the petitioner did not possess any valid license for the export. Further, as per Form 20-B issued by Assistant Director of Drugs, no sale of any drug shall be made for the purposes of resale to a person not holding the requisite license to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute the drug. In the instant case, it is alleged that the petitioner did not produce such a certificate from the consignee.