NARCOTICS CONTROL ACT [XX OF 1990]

Section 19—

As the respondent was carrying surreptitiously 3 kg 27 grams of powder the whole stuff is to be treated as heroin for the purpose of the Act intending to punish the carrier of the narcotic irrespective of whether it is in the purest form or not. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the “actual and real heroin content” for the purpose of a conviction under clause 1(a) of the table of section 19 of the Act. The view taken by the High Court Division expressing that the purpose of the law is only to punish the preparation, carrying and dealing, etc. of laboratory heroin’ and not the stuff is wrong.

State vs Miss Eliadah McCord 2 BLC (AD) 1.

Section 19—

While considering the sentence to be passed upon the respondent under clause 1(a) of section 19 of the Act the High Court Division was wrong in relying upon a statement made by the respondent recorded in connection with the Miscellaneous case started on a suo inotu Rule as that statement was not part of the record of the appeal and thus irrelevant as far as the appeal was concerned.

State vs Miss Eliadah McCord 2 BLC (AD) 1.

Section 19—

As there is no scope for altering the conviction from one under clause 1(b) to clause 1(a) of the table of section 19 of the Act reducing the sentence on compassionate ground considering the age of the respondent who may approach the Government or the President, if so advised, for any relief that she may choose to pray.

State vs Miss Eliadah McCord 2 (AD) BLC 1.

Section 19(7) (Kha)—

The seizure list witnesses having not supported the prosecution case of recovery of two bags of ganja from the possession of the appellant when the evidence of Habilder, a member of raiding party, made the recovery of the incriminating articles as he testified that the seizure list was prepared at Ferry-Ghat when none of the neighbours were called at the time of recovery and hence the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged recovery of incriminating articles beyond reasonable doubt and thus the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is set aside.

Musa Miah vs State 5 BLC 703.

Sections 19(1), 6(Kha), 22(Ga) and 25—

In the absence of any provision as to in which äourt the offence under “মাদক দ্রব্য নিয়ন্ত্রন আইন ১৯৯০” are triable the provisions of section 5(2), CrPC will apply and the trial should be held in the Court as mentioned in the second schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure under the heading “offences against other laws”.

Arjun Saha and ors vs State 5 BLC 416.