THINLEY BHUTIA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order dated 6 -6 -2000 whereby the learned Special Judge. NDPS ordered the framing of the charge against the accused petitioner under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was found to be in possession of only Six numbers of Nitrazepam tablets a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance which is a small quantity within the meaning of Section 27 having regard to the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Revenue), Not. No. S.O. 527/(E), dated July 16. 1996. published in the Gazette of India. Extra. Part II. Section 3(i0. dated 23rd July. 1996 pp. 10 -19. No. 425 (F. No. l/13/93 -NCB (Legal -I) according to which 20 grams of Nitrazepam has been notified to be a small quantity. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that six tablets would weigh not mort" than 3 grams. However, we are not impressed with the argument since a mere perusal of Section 27 would show that in order to exclude a case from being covered under Section 22 and to cover it under Section 27 two ingredients must be present: -

(2.) IT is thus evident that unless the record shows that the Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance was intended to be used for personal consumption the case will not be covered under Section 27 so as to exclude it from the scope of Section 22 merely because the quantity is less than that specified in the Notification issued by the Central Government. In the result the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.