Amal Das vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the subsequent generation of GST invoices, coupled with the interception of the truck carrying contraband on the previous day without any documents, raised significant suspicion. The discrepancies regarding M/s. Nalini Drugs Distributors and the interpolated license number further deepened the doubt. The communication from the Inspector of Drugs indicating that invoices from M/s. Hematech Pharmaceuticals did not exist as per office records, and the invoices being issued to 'M/s. Nalini Distributors' with a non-existent license number, strengthened the case against the petitioner. The Court found sufficient force in the arguments made by the State, emphasizing that offences under the NDPS Act, especially involving commercial quantities of chemically manufactured drugs, are serious and part of organized crime. The Court noted that recovery is not a sine qua non for arrest or conviction if other corroborating materials exist, which are abundantly available in this case. Applying Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court found that the petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions for bail, namely, prima facie not being guilty and not being likely to commit further offences. Therefore, the Court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Amal Das, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Basistha PS Case No. 1023/2020, registered under the NDPS Act. The case involved the seizure of 44,160 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup, a psychotropic substance, found in a truck without proper documentation. The petitioner claimed the consignment was purchased from Daffodil Drugs Private Limited, Kolkata, and supplied to M/s. Nalini Drugs Distributor, with GST invoices generated. However, the GST invoice date was subsequent to the seizure date. Investigations revealed discrepancies regarding the existence and details of M/s. Nalini Drugs Distributor and the authenticity of the invoices, including a blank document filled by hand. The Court had previously granted interim protection and directed further investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the subsequent generation of GST invoices, even if a violation of GST law, can be considered a violation of the NDPS Act, Section 21, making the petitioner liable under the NDPS Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether the seized Eskuf cough syrup, containing Codeine Phosphate, falls under the exception of Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, allowing its transportation with necessary documents under Rule 67(4)? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: - Subsequent generation of bills is at best a violation of the GST Act, not the NDPS Act. - The seized articles, though psychotropic substances, fall under the exception of Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, and transportation with necessary documents is permissible under Rule 67(4). - The petitioner cannot be held liable for the misuse of the license of M/s. Nalini Drugs Distributor. Revenue's arguments: - The movement of a huge quantity of psychotropic substance (cough syrup containing Codeine) involves anomalies and illegalities at different stages, including GST invoices. - The case involves commercial quantity and chemically manufactured drugs, and offences under the NDPS Act are part of organized crime. - Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires the Court to be satisfied that the petitioner is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences, which are not met.