Narcotic Control Act, 1990



Section 19(Ka), 3(Ka) and 7(Ka)

Misreading and non-reading of evidence

Benefit of doubt – On perusal of the record it appears that the application dated 03.09.2001 of the appellant and the inquiry report of the Magistrate Mr. M. Monjurul Huq dated 21.10.2001 are lying with the record. The magistrate inquired the matter and found the contention of this application correct. He further stated in his report that the appellant was never connected with phensydil business and the case regarding phensydil was filed against the accused in order to harras him in the society. So this report of the Mr. Monjurul Huq Magistrate and Assistant Commissioner dated 21.10.2001 cast serious doubt in the prosecution case.

Md. Nurul Huq Vs The State 14 BLT (HCD)-93

Section-19 (f), Clause 1 (b)

Whether the High Court Division was right in holding that as curtailment of actual and real herein of more than 25 grams would be necessary for recording conviction under clause 1(b) of the table.

In the instant case, when it has been proved that the seized packets contained heroin then the whole of the contents must be treated as heroin for punishment. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the "actual and real heroin content" for the purpose of a conviction under clause 1 (b) of the table.

The State Vs. Miss Eliadah Mc Code 4 BLT (AD)-266

Section-36 and Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) Section-103

In case of search of any suspected house of any person suspected of committing any offence under Act 20 of 1990, the provisions of section 103 Cr. P. C. does not require to be fully complied with.

Ashok Kumar Saha Vs. The State 2 BLT (HCD)-79.



CONTROL ACT, 1990 (XX OF 1990)


Penalty for breach of the
provision of


The Act has
mentioned ‘heroin’ as narcotic substance which is sold as such in the market, a
substance which is in traffic as such around the world. Law in every country is
very stringent in dealing with a narcotic drug because of its disastrous
potential on social, national and international life. In these contexts the
Appellate Division took the view that if a substance which is commercially
accepted as ‘hereoin’ contains what is chemically called ‘diacetylmorphine’ the
whole substance is to be treated as ‘heroin’ for the purpose of the Act. The
law intends to punish dealer of the narcotic irrespective of whether it is in
the purest form or not.

In the
instant case, since it has been proved that the seized packets contained
‘heroin’, the whole of the contents must be treated heroin for the purpose of
punishment. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove the “actual and real
heroin content” for the purpose of a conviction under 1(b) of the Table of
section 19. The High Court Division was wrong to ignore the real perspectives
of the act and took an erroneous view that the purpose of the law is only to
punish the preparation, carrying and dealing etc. of ‘laboratory heroin’ and
not the stuff which was being clandestinely carried by the accused taking great
personal risk under a remote control system managed by the captains of the
crime sitting across the seas.

In the
circumstances of the case there was no scope for altering the conviction from
one under Clause 1(b) to Clause 1(a) of the Table and consequently there could
not be any question of reduction of sentence on compassionate grounds as was
done by the High Court Division.

The State Vs. Miss
Eliadah McCord 16BLD(AD)239.