Skip to main content

NDPS Act

                      NDPS Act, 1985

NDPS stands for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, introduced in 1985 by the Lok Sabha which has been amended for four times till now. It prohibits a person the production/manufacturing/cultivation, possession, sale, purchasing, transport, storage, and/or consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.

Before 1985, cannabis and its derivatives which includes marijuana, hasish/charas and bhang were openly sold with no legal obligation. It was legal. It was seen as parallel to the consumption of alcohol which the upper class Indians would take it and hence does not attract any kind of punishment from law. But the United States was not in favor of all this and began a movement against the consumption of all drugs following the making of Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961. At that time, India opposed the move but in 1985 it finally gave in made the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in 1985 which banned all kind of narcotic drugs.

The punishment faced by the individual in the breaking of these laws are as follows:

  1. When the contravention is done in a small quantity then the imprisonment may extend to 1 year or with a fine up to 10,000.

  2. When there is a contravention of a quantity which is less than the commercial quantity then the imprisonment term may extend to 10 years with a fine which can even extend to 1 lakh rupees. 

  3. When the contravention is of commercial quantity then there is  a rigorous imprisonment which shall not be less than 10 years and may even extend to 20 years with fine which should not be less than 1 lakh rupees.

From the time being it is enacted, it has faced a lot of criticism because it imposes on the grant of bail amount to “amount to virtual denial and ensure years of incarceration”. It is considered as one of the draconian law enacted by the government of India. It attract provisions which is somewhat similar to Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. The burden of proof also is on the accused to prove his innocence and the court will automatically consider it as a culpable mental state which means the individual already had intention to commit crime and then there is no further argument in this. The deviance is present as according to the general principle of law the accused is innocent until proven guilty but in this case the accused will be guilty until proven innocent.

Therefore, the provisions of the law may be draconian in nature and deviance is there from the general principle which again brings us to the point that the innocent can be accused and held liable for the fault which he has not committed or committed but he did not have that prerequisite intention to do so but whatever the case may be it is done for the welfare of the people. The movement which took place worldwide was also for the welfare of people amd may be the government of India initially didn’t wanted to give in and enact such a law but at the end of the day it is a good decision. The drugs are not good for the health of the individual as it harms the organs and results in its failure. So, whatever is done is done for the good of the large people and that is why it should be seen in a good light.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more