Narcotics Control Act, 1990

 

Narcotics
Control Act [XX of 1990]


Section 2(kha), 10(ga) & 3(kha) of the Second Schedule–

The
contention that unless the aforesaid provisions of laws are made to coexist by
giving harmonious interpretation or the said offending provisions of the
Narcotics Control Act are removed by amendment, members of the petitioner
association as manufacturers of homeopathic medicine and drugs will be
seriously affected is not real or justified.

Bangladesh
Homeopathic Medicine Manufacturers Associa­tion vs Bangladesh and others 55 DLR
590.

 

Section 19(1) & Serial (T) or (U)–of the Table–

In the
absence of any law declaring Phensidyl contraband, presence of Chlorpheniramine
maleate and/or codeine phosphate in Phensidyl will not make it contraband as a
schedule narcotic– Therefore, carrying or possession of the Phensidyl seized is
not a punishable offence.

Badal Kumar
Paul vs State 55 DLR 218.

 

Narcotics Control Act, 1990


Narcotics Control Act

[XX of 1990]

 

Sections 9 &
19(1)—

In the absence of any proof that the quantity of heroin
exceeds 25 grams the condemned-prisoner is liable to be sentenced under (a) of
item I of Table appended to section 19(1) of the Act. It appears for the last 2
years 9 months he is under the agony of death sentence in the deadly condemned
cell as a condemned-prisoner. Considering that aspect of the case and the
quantity of the heroin does not exceed 25 grams, ends of justice would be
served if the sentence of death be commuted to 5 years rigorous imprisonment.

State vs Innocent N Egbunine 50 DLR 460.

Section 19(1),
clause 1(a) —

Although the
prosecution failed to prove heroin above 25 grams in this case, yet it will not
call for a total exoneration from the charge of carrying heroin the accused as
it has been proved carried some element of heroin and so she is liable to be
charged under Clause 1(a) of the Table of Section 19(1) of the Act. Since she
begged mercy of the Court, ends of justice will be met if sentence of jail for
the period which she has already undergone is imposed instead of life
imprisonment.

Eliadah McCord vs State 48 DLR 495.

Sections 36 & 42—

There are provisions in this Act itself a little distinctive
from section 103 CrPC. As such, in case of search of any house of a person
suspected of committing any offence under the Act the provisions of section 103
CrPC are not required to be fully complied with.

Ashok Kumar Saha vs State 46 DLR 229.

 

Narcotics Control Act, 1990

 

Narcotics Control Act, 1990

 

Section 19(3)- Offence of possession
of ganja plants held not proved when the prosecution led no evidence as to the
land where from the ganja plants recovered belongs to the convict petitioner.

Convict-petitioner was convicted for
the offence under section
19(3) the narcotics Control Act, 1990 and the conviction and sentence were also affirmed by the
Sessions Judge in Appeal. The learned
judge Of the High court
Division set aside
the order of conviction and sentence in
view of
absense of evidence on record showing that
the land wherefrom the ganja plants were recovered actually belongs to the
convict-petitioner.

Shamsher All (Md.) Vs. The State 12
MLR (2007)
(HC) 38.

 

Narcotics Control Act, 1990


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 underমাদক
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.