Mischief rule can’t be invoked to read ‘Magistrate’ As ‘Special Court’ U/S 52A NDPS Act: Orissa High Court

Sections 36-A to 36-C which specify the powers of the Particular Choose don’t expressly state that such Particular Choose can train the powers of the Justice of the Peace for the needs of Part 52-A(2) to (4) of the Act. Due to this fact, it was held that it’s not attainable for the Courtroom to direct that the powers exercisable by the Justice of the Peace below Part 52-A may very well be exercised by the Particular Choose below Part 36. These were upheld by  the High Court of Orissa through the learned bench of  Justice A. K. Mohapatra in the case  of State of Odisha v. Registrar Basic, Orissa Excessive Courtroom, Cuttack(WP(C)/32580/2021)

The crux of the case is a petition was made by the State of Odisha through the Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force, CID CB seeking instructions from the Registrar General of the Court on effective action regarding seizures, sampling, secure confiscations, and disposal of seized items. such as drugs, narcotics and psychotropic substances in reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the Union of India v. Mohanlal, ((2016) 3 SCC 379). In particular, it was identified that regardless of the inclusion of Section 52-A within the NDPS Act. According to the NDPS (Transformation) Act, 2014, there is not enough indication of the precise disposal of a seized drug within the Province of Odisha and that there is a large stock of that drug seized inside Malkhanas at various police stations further within the Courts. Refer also to the Notice issued by the Revenue Department, Ministry of Finance, Authorities of India, regarding the disposal of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances and supplies immediately after their arrest. Paragraphs 4 and 9 of the specified Notice set out the style and method of disposal of the drug. The two were interpreted by the High Court in its decision on Mohanlal (supra). Apex Courtroom has made recommendations in this regard. The purpose of this application was to direct the Court to train its jurisdiction over certain courts to achieve the purpose of the law and to ensure that the disposal of the drug when it comes to the laws issued by Mohanlal (supra) takes effect. put in a certain time.

The petitioner submitted that confusion has been created by Part 52-A requiring certification by the ‘Justice of the Peace’ whereas the ability to take cognizance of the offences is with the Particular Courts in view of Part 36-A(1)(d) of the NDPS Act. The ability to order remand has additionally been vested with the Particular Courtroom below Part 36-A(1)(c) of the Act. It was accordingly submitted that the phrase ‘Justice of the Peace’ must be learn as ‘Particular Courtroom’ with a purpose to keep away from any anomalies within the implementation of the rules in Mohanlal (supra).

The respondent argued that the language of Part 52-A(2) envisages the Justice of the Peace to whom an utility is made, to permit the applying as quickly as attainable, since below Part 52-A(3) of the NDPS Act, no discretion in that regard is left with the Justice of the Peace. In keeping with the respondent, the structure of Particular Courts below Part 36 and certification of the correctness of the stock below Part 52-A(2) “are altogether two completely different points”.

The learned bench of Justice A. K. Mohapatra held that legislative intent is obvious and within the gentle of interpretation of Part 52-A(2) to (4) by the Supreme Courtroom in State of Punjab v. Makhan Chand, (2004) 3 SCC 453; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417; Union of India v. Jarooparam, (2018) 4 SCC 334, there is no such thing as a scope for invoking ‘mischief rule’ to learn the phrase ‘Justice of the Peace’ within the above provision as ‘Particular Courtroom’. It additional cited Bangaru Laxman v. State, (2012) 1 SCC 500, the place it was held that the expression ‘Justice of the Peace’ would come with a ‘Particular Choose’ just for the aim of ‘grant of pardon’ below Part 306, Cr.P.C. Once more, the statement in State of Tamil Nadu v. V. Krishnaswami Naidu, (1979) 4 SCC 5, that the Justice of the Peace outlined below Part 3(32) of the Basic Clauses Act features a Particular Choose for the needs of ‘remand’ below Part 167, Cr.P.C. can also be for that restricted goal.

Click here to read the judgement

Judgement reviewed by Himanshu Ranjan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat