[2016) 1 S.C.R. 651 UNION OF INDIA A v. MOHANLAL & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 652 of2012) JANUARY 28, 2016 B [T. S. THAKUR, CJI. AND KURIAN JOSEPH, J.) National Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -s.52A - Seizure, storage and disposal of psychotropic substances -Standing Order 1189 dated 13.6.1989 prescribing procedure for cconducting seizure and disposal of the contraband - Standing orders dated 10.5.2007 a71d 16.1.2015 prescribing procedure for disposal and destruction of seized contraband - Non-observance of uniform practice or procedure by the States or the Central Agencies in the matter of drawing samples - No provision in the Act regulating storage of the contraband- Standing Order dated 16.1.2015 not D superseding the previous Standing Order 1189 - Held: There is no provision in the Act mandating taking of samples at the time of seizure

- There is conflict between statutory provision and the standing order regarding taking of samples - Central Government directed . to re-examine the matter and take suitable steps in this direction -EAn application for sampling and certification needs to be made without undue delay and .the Magistrate on receipt of any such application is expected to attend to ·the application within reasonable period without undue delay - High Courts to keep a close watch on the performance of the Magistrates - Central Government and the State agencies have not established any notified storage faci/ity- F godown for storage of seized drugs with proper system of supervision and control over the stored drugs - Such failure shows a complete failure bordering criminal negligence by officers who are supposed to be taking action in this regard - Direction issued to the Central Government and State agencies to set up adequate storage facilities Gwith effective supervisory and regulatory controls as prescribed under standing Order 1189 - The Standing Order 1189 would be treated to have been superseded to the extent the subsequent Standing Order dated 16.01.2015 prescribes a different procedure for destruction/disposal of seized contrabands - Direction to dispose of the contraband in the manner specified in the present judgment H 651 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] l S.C.R.

A - The Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to appoint a Committee of Judges on the administrative side to supervise and monitor progress made by the respective States in regard to the compliance with the direction in the- present case. Ad,journing the matter, the Court B HELD: 1.1 Section 52-A(l) of the National Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 empowers the Central Government to prescribe by a Notification the procedure to be followed for seizure, storage and disposal of drugs and psychotropic substances. The Central Government have in exercise of that power issued Standing Order No. 1189 which c prescribes the procedure to be followed while conducting seizure of the contraband. Two subsequent stantling orders one dated 10.05.2007 and the other dated 16.01.2015 deal with disposal and destruction of seized contraband and do not alter or add to the earlier standing order that prescribes the procedure for D conducting seizures. [Para 11] [683-F-H]

1.2 Para 2.2 of the Standing Order 1/89 states that samples must be taken from the seized contrabands on the spot at the time of recovery itself. There is no uniform practice or procedure being followed by the States or the Central agencies in the matter of drawing of samples. This is, therefore, an area that needs to E be suitably addressed in the light of the statutory provisions which ought to b" strictly observed given the seriousness of the offences under the Act and the punishment prescribed by law in case the same are proved. The Court proposes to deal with the issue in an attempt to remove the confusion that prevails regarding the F true position as regards drawing of samples. [Para 11] [683-H; 684-A, DJ 1.3 Section 52A as amended by Act 16 of 2014, deals with disposal of seized drugs and psychotropic substances. In view of s. 52A(2)(c) no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the G officer empowered, the officer concerned is, in law, duty hound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true and (c) to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate H and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL 653

These samples are then to be enlisted and the correctness of the A list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. Thus, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes Bplace in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. There is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of c samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure. [Paras 12, 13) (684-E; 685-G-H; 686-A-D]

1.4 A conflict between the statutory provision governing taking of samples and the standing order issued by the Central DGovernment is evident when the two are placed in juxtaposition. There is no gainsaid that such a conflict shall have to be resolved in favour of the statute on first principles of interpretation but the continuance of the statutory notification in its present form is bound to create confusion in the minds of.the authorities concerned instead of helping them in the discharge of their duties. E The Central Government would, therefore, do well, to re-examine the matter and take suitable steps in the above direction. [Para 13] (686-E-F)

1.5. There is no manner of doubt that the seizure of the contraband must be followed by an application for drawing of Fsamples and certification as contemplated under the Act. There is equally no doubt thatthe process of making any such application and resultant sampling and certification cannot be left to the whim• of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general a,- _ Section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matte; of making of an application or the drawing of samples and G certification. While, there is no room for prescribing or reading a time frame into the provision, an application for sampling and certification ought to be made without undue delay and the Magistrate on receipt of any such application will be expected to attend to the application and do the needful, within a reasonable Hperiod and without any undue delay or procrastination as is 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) I S.C.R. A mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 52A. The High Courts will keep a close watch on the performance of the Magistrates in this regard and through the Magistrates on the agencies that are dealing with the menace of drugs which has taken alarming dimensions in the country partly because of the ineffective and lackadaisical enforcement of the laws and procedures and cavalier B manner in which the agencies and at times Magistracy in the country addresses a problem of such serious dimensions. [Para 14] [686-H; 687-A-D]

1.6 No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is c effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an application under Section 52A(ii) of the Act, which shall be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be required under Sub-Section 3 of Section 52A. The sampling shall D be done under the supervision of the magistrate. [Paras 19-20] [695-B-D]

2.1 The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 does not make any special provision regulating storage of the contraband substances. All that Section 55 of the Act envisages E is that the officer in charge of a Police Station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody the seized article pending orders of the Magistrate concerned. There is no provision nor was any such provision pointed out, prescribing the nature of the storage facility to be used for storage of the contraband substances. Even so the F importance of adequate storage facilities for safe deposit and storage of the contraband material has been recognised by the Government inasmuch as Standing Order No.1/89 has made specific provisions in regard to the same. Section III of the said Order deals with "Receipt of Drugs in Godowns and Procedure" which inter alia provides that all drugs shall invariably be stored G in "safes and vaults" provided with double locking system and that the agencies of the Central and the State Governments may specifically designate their godowns for storage purposes and such godowns should be selected keeping in view their security angle, juxtaposition to courts etc. [Para 15] [687-E-H; 688-A] H 2.2 It is evident from a plain reading of para 3.2 of Section UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL 655

III of Order No.1/89 that storage of all drugs in safes and vaults A has been made mandatory and that agencies of the Central and the State Governments h·ave been permitted to designate their godowns for storage purposes. It is also clear that keeping in view the importance of protecting the seized drugs against theft, substitution or pilferage the Central Government has prescribed Bthat such godowns shall be placed under the overall supervision and charge of a gazetted officer of the respective enforcement agencies who shall exercise utmost care, circumspection and personal supervision over the storage facilities. The provision contained in paras 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 also are aimed at ensuring that the godown or storage facility is satisfactory and those in- c charge of the same are made accountable for its upkeep and effective management. Subsequent Notification including Notification dated 16'' January, 2015 have in no way diluted the above requirement. The result is that there is a statutory framework which governs the storage of drugs and matters Drelating and incidental thereto. [Para 15] [689-C-F]

2.3 The said statutory mechanism has been effectively implemented by the Central Government agencies and by the State Governments. It is evident from the responses received from the State and the Central Government agencies that no E notified storage facility-godown has been established for storage of the seized drugs. Even after a lapse of 26 years since Standing Order No. 1189 was issued, the Central Government or its agencies and the State Governments have paid little or no attention to. the need for providing adequate storage facilities of the kind stipulated in Standing Order No. 1/89 with the necessary F supervisory and other controls prescribed in Section III of the said order. The failure on the part of the Central Government and the State Governments to provide for such storage I· defeated, if not completely negated the very purpose underlyir _, the said notification and the provisions made therein. There is as G on date hardly any credible protection against theft, replacement, pilferage and destruction of the seized drugs on account of the wholly unsatisfactory and unscientific method of storage of drugs and psychotropic substances. [Para 15] [689-F-G; 690-A-D] 2.4 There is a complete failure on the part of the Central Government and its agencies as also the State Governments in H 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] l S.C.R.

A taking adequate steps for providing proper storage facilities with proper system of supervision and control over the drugs that are stored in the same. [Para 15] [690-F] 2.5 The fact that the States and the Central Government agencies have accepted that no specific register is maintained by B the State Police and that general maalkhana register alone is being maintained for the seized drugs shows the neglect of all concerned towards this important aspect and the cavalier manner in which the issue regarding storage of ceased drugs is approached by them. Absence of periodical inspection of the storage facility c and the absence of any record suggesting that any inspection has been carried out by any of the officers shows a complete failure bordering criminal negligence by officers who are supposed to be taking action in this regard but have failed to do so. (Para 15] J690-H; 691-A-BJ . 2.6 Appropriate directions are issued to the Central D Government agencies and to the States to set up adequate storage facilities with effective supervisory and regulatory controls as prescribed in Notification No. 1/89. [Para 16] [691-F]

2. 7 The Central Government and its agencies and so also the State Governments shall within six months from the date of E the present judgment take appropriate steps to set up storage facilities for the exclusive storage of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances duly equipped with vaults and double locking system to prevent theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. The Central Government and the State Governments shall also designate an F officer each for their respective storage facility aud provide for other steps, measures as stipulated in Standing Order No. 1/89 to ensure proper security against theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. [Para 20] [695-E-F] 2 .8 The Central Government and the State Governments G shall be free to set up a storage facility for each district in the States and depending upon the extent of seizure and store required, one storage facility for more thau one districts. (Para 20] (695-G] 3.1 Section 52A as amended provides for disposal of the H UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL 657

seized contraband in the manner stipulated by the Government A under Clause 1 of that Section. Notification dated 16" January, 2015 has, in supersession of the earlier notification dated lO'h May, 2007 not only stipulates that all drugs and psychotropic substances have to be disposed off but also identifies the officers who shall initiate action for disposal and the procedure to be Bfollowed for such disposal. Para 4 of the Notification inter alia, provides that officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall within 30 days from the date of receipt of chemical analysis report of drugs, psychotropic substances or controlled substances apply to any Magistrate under Section 52A(2) in terms of Annexure 2 to the said Notification. [Para 17] [691-G-H; 692-A-B] c

3.2 The notification dated 16'h January, 2015 does not in terms supersede Standing Order No. 1/89 insofar as the said Standing Order also prescribes the procedure to be followed for disposal of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances. Specific overriding of the earlier D Standing Order would have avoided a certain amount of confusion which is evident on account of simultaneous presence of Standing Order No.1189 and notification dated 16" January, 2015. To the extent the subsequent notification prescribes a different procedure, the earlier notification/Standing Order No.1/89 would Ebe treated to have been superseded. In order to avoid any confusion arising out of the continued presence of two notifications on the same subject it is clarified that disposal of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances shall be carried out in the manner specified/provided by this judgment, till such time the Government prescribes a different F procedure for the same. [Para 19] [692-G-H; 693-D-E]

3.3 In respect of cases where the trial is concluded and proceedings in appeal/revision have all concluded finally, before 29" May, 1989, it is directed that the Drugs Disposal Committees of the States and the Central agencies shall take stock of all such G seized contrabands and take steps for their disposal without any further verification, testing or sampling whatsoever. In the cases where the drugs that are seized after May, 1989 and where the trial and appeal and revision have also been finally disposed of, The DDCs shall accordingly take stock of all such Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances in H 658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R.

A relation to which the trial of the accused persons has finally concluded and the proceedings have attained finality at all levels in the judicial hierarchy. The DDCs shall then take steps to have such stock also destroyed under the direct supervision of the head of the Department concerned. In the cases in which the proceedings are still pending before the Courts at the level of B trial court, appellate court or before the Supreme Court, the heads of the Department concerned shall ensure that appropriate applications are moved by the officers competent to do so under Notification dated 16" January, 2015 before the Drugs Disposal Committees concerned and steps for disposal of such Narcotic c Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances taken without any further loss of time. [Para 19] [693-i<; 694-A-D, F-H; 695-A) 4. The Chief Justices of the High Courts concerned are requested to appoint a Committee. of Judges on the D administrative side to supervise and monitor progress made by the respective States in regard to the compliance with the above directions and wherever necessary, to issue appropriate directions for a speedy action on the administrative and even on the judicial side in public interest wherever considered necessary. [Para 21] (696-B) E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 652 of2012 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2010 of the High Court ofM. P. in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of2008.

Ranjit Kumar, SG, Ajit Kumar Sinha, (A.C.), A. K. Panda, Binu F Tamta, Sushma Manchanda, Pravesh Thakur, Manish Vashishtha, D.S. Mahra, Shreekant N. Terdal for the Appellant. Sharwan Dogra, Adv. Gen., Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. Addi. Adv. Gen., Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Pardeep Kumar (for Corporate Law Group), Hemantika Wahi, Jesal G Wahi, Preetika Dwivedi,Abhinav Mukerji, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Sanjay Sharawat for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. THAKUR, CJI. I. When this appeal came up for hearing before us on 11 'h April, 2012, it was contended by learned counsel for H the appellant-Union of India that Standing Order No. I of 1989 dated UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 659 13"' June, 1989 which prescribes the procedure to be followed for seizure, A sampling, safe keeping and disposal of the seized Drugs, Narcotics and Psychotropic substances is being followed throughout the country. It was also contended that Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, has in terms of a Circular dated 23" February, 2011 impressed upon the Chief Secretaries and the concerned police Bheads of the State Governments to ensure that instructions given and the procedure prescribed in the Standing Order aforementioned was strictly adhered to. These submissions notwithstanding, doubts about the procedure being actually followed persisted. Pilferage of the contraband goods and their return to the market place for circulation being a major hazard, this Court appointed Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate, as c Amicus Curiae, with a view to making a realistic review of the procedure for search, disposal or destruction of the narcotics and the remedial steps that need to be taken to plug the loopholes, if any.

2. On 3" July, 2012 this Court after hearing the Amicus Curiae prima facie came to the conclusion that the procedure prescribed for the D destruction of the contraband seized in different States was not being followed resulting in a very piquant situation in which accumulation of huge quantities of the seized drugs and narcotics has increased manifold the chances of their pilferage for re-circulation in the market. This Court also noted a report published in the timesofindia.indiatimes.com under. the heading "Bathinda's police stores bursting at seams with seized E narcotics" from which it appeared that large quantities of seized drugs had accumulated over the years including opium, poppy husk, charas etc. apart from modem narcotic substances. The report suggested that 39 lakhs sedatives and narcotic tablets, 1.10 lakhs capsules, over 21,000 drug syrups and 1828 sedative injections apart from 8 kgs. of smack and F 84 kgs. of ganja were awaiting disposal in Bathinda Police stores alone. The position was, according to Mr. Sinha, no better in other States especially those situate along the international bprders. It was argued by the Amicus Curiae that without proper data from the authorities concerned, it was not possible to take stock of the magnitude of the Gproblem no matter challenges posed by rampant drug abuse had acquired alarming proportions affecting the youth, some of whom are driven to commission of crimes on account of deleterious effects of drug abuse.

3. It was in the above backdrop that by an order dated 3'' July, 2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.652 of 2012 this Court directed H 660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. A collection of information from the police heads of each one of the States through the Chief Secretaries concerned in regard to seizure, storage, disposal and destruction of the seized contraband and judicial supervision over the same. Specific queries were formulated in the order passed by us with a direction to the Chief Secretaries of the States concerned to serve the same upon the Directors General of Police for a report to be B forwardf:d through the Registrars General of the High Courts of the States concerned who were appointed Nodal Officers for that purpose. Registrars General were also asked to independently secure from the District and Sessions Judges concerned in their respective States, answers to the queries specified under the head "Judicial Supervision". Chiefs of c Central Government Agencies viz. Narcotics Control Bureau, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence and Commissionerates of Customs & Central Excise including the lndian Coast Guard were directed to issue similar queries to the officers concerned and to submit their respective reports detailing the information required in terms of the orders passed by this Court. The queries raised D by this Court were in the following words: "12.J. Seizure

(i) What narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (natural and synthetic) have been seized in the last JO years and in E what quantity? Provide yearwise and districtwise details of the seizure made by the relevant authority. (ii) What are the steps, if any, taken by the seizing authorities to prevent damage, loss and pilferage of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (natural and synthetic) during F seizure/transit? (iii) What are the circulars/notifications/directions/guidelines, if any, issued to competent officers to follow any specific procedure in regard to seizure of contrabands, their storage and destruction? Copies of the same be attached to the report. G 12.2. Storage (i) Is there any specified/notified store for storage of the seized contraband in a State, if so, is the storage space available in each district or ta/uka? (ii) If a store/storage space is not available in each district or H taluka, where is the contraband sent for storage purposes? UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 661 Under what conditions is withdrawal of the contraband A permissible ani whether a court order is obtained for such withdrawal? (iii) What are the steps taken at the time of storage to determine the nature and quantity of the substance being stored and what are the measures taken to prevent substitution and B pilferage from the stores?

(iv) Is there any check stock register maintained at the site of storage and if so, by whom? Is there any periodical check of such register? If so, by whom? Is any record regarding such periodic inspection maintained and in what form? c (v) What is the condition of the storage facilities at present? Is there any shortage of space or any other infrastructure lacking? What steps have been taken or are being taken to remove the deficiencies, if any? (vi) Have any circulars/notifications/directions/guidelines D been issued to competent officers for care and caution to be exercised during storage? Ifso, a copy of the same be produced. 12.3. Disposal/Destruction E (i) What narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (natural and synthetic) have been destroyed in the last JO years and in what quantity? Provide yearwise and districtwise details of the destruction made by the relevant authority. If no destruction has taken place, the reason therefor. F (ii) Who is authorised to apply for permission of the court to destroy the seized contraband? Has there been any failure or dereliction in making such applications? Whether any person having technical knowledge of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (natural and synthetic) is associated with the actual process of destruction of the contraband? G (iii) Was any action taken against the person who should have applied for permission to destroy the drugs or should have destroyed and did not do so?

(iv) What are the steps taken at the time of destruction to determine the nature and quantity of the substance being H 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. A destroyed? (v) What are the steps taken by competent alllhorities to prevent damage, loss, pilferage and tampering/substitution of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (natural and synthetic) during transit from point of storage to point of B destruction? (vi) Is there any specified facility for destruction of contraband in the State? If so, a list of such facilities along with location and details of maintenance, conditions and supervisory bodies be provided. c (vii) If a facility is not available, where is the contraband sent for destruction purposes? Under whose supervision and what is the entire procedure thereof? (viii) Is any record. electronic or othen<•ise prepared at the site of destruction of the contraband and by whom? Is there D any periodical check of such record? What are the ranks/ designation of the supervising officers charged with keeping a check on the same> 12.4. Judicial supervision (i) Is any inspection done by the District and Sessions Judge E of the store where the seized drugs are kept? If drugs are lying in the store, has the Sessions Judge taken steps to have them destroyed?

(ii) JS any report of the inspection conducted, submitted to the Administrative Judge of the High Court or the Registry of F the High Court? If so, has any action on the subject being taken for timely inspection and destruction of the drugs? (iii) Are there any pending applications for destruction of drugs in the district concerned, if so, what is the reason for the delay in the disposal of such application? G (iv) What level officers including the judicial officers are associated with the process of destruction? (v) At what stages are the Magistrates/judicial officers/any other officer of the court associated with seizure/storage/ H destruction of drugs? UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 663 (vi) Are there any rules framed by the Court regarding its A supervisory role in enforcement of the NDPS Act as regards seizure/storage/destruction of drugs? (vii) What is the average time for completion of trial of NDPS matters?" B 4. In compliance with the above directions, reports have been submitted by all the States except the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Dadar & Nagar Haveli, Lakshadweep, Nagaland and Pondicherry. From a perusal of the reports so received the position that emerges in regard to disposal/destruction of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance qua each State· for the last I 0 years may be c summarised as under: DETAILS OF SEIZURE AND DISPOSAL OF DRUGS (STATEWISE) I. ANDHRA PRADESH

D Item Total Quanti!x Tgtal Quantity Difference . Seized (In 10 !!~strayed (in 10 years) vears\ Ganja 2,20,977.191 Kg 39I0.70 Kg 217066.491 kg (98.23%) Opium 22.925 kg 0 22.925 Kg (I 00%) E Charas 6.5 kg 0 6.5 kg (JOO%) Cocaine 851.0% kg 0 851.096 kg (I 00%) _ Others 85.125 kg+ 103 0 F '· Capsules + 81 Injections 26 Amp 2. ASSAM (The Information pertains only to the period of 2010-2012) G Item Total Quanti!l: Total Quantitv Difference Seiz eel (In 10 Destrol'.ecl (in years) 10:1'.ears} Ganja 203.54 Kg 136Kg 67.54 (33.18%) H 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R. A Heroin .614 kg 0 .214 Kg (34.853%) Opium 30gms 0 30 !!!TIS {I 00%) Others 755662 41472 Nos. 714190Nos. (94.5%) B 3. BIHAR Item Total Quanti!l: Total Quantitt Difference Seized (!n 10 Destrol'.ed (in vears) lOvears) Ganja 45Kg 0 45 kg c Heroin 3.74 kg 0 3.74 kg Charas 48.853 kg 0 48.853 kg Poppy 100 kgs 0 100 kgs D Straws Methqu 1676 kgs 0 1676 kgs alone Note:- No destruction of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances have taken place at Patna zonal unit. E 4. CHHATTISGARH Quantit~ Total Quant it~ Di[ference .!W!!. Total Seized (In IO Destroyed (in 10 F years) years) Ganja 1,03.622.140 kg 3281.570 kg 1,00,340 .57 Kg (96.77%) Cannabis 52478 (Nos) 380 (Nos) 52098 (Nos) Plants (92.7%) Brown 3.120 kg 0 3.129 kg ( 100%) G Sugar Opium 1.460 kg 0 1.460 kg ( 100%) Opium 1558 pieces 0 1558 pieces Ponov Plant (100%) Green 3600 kg 0 3600 kg ( 100%) Opium Plant H

UNION OF !NOIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 665 5. CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE A Item Total Quantity Total Quantity Difference Seized (!n 10 Destroyed (in vears) 10 years) Opium 367.007kg 658.525 kg Destroyed more than B seized Morphine 58.393 kg 190 kg+ 88930 58.203 kg Pcs lni ections (99.6%) Heroine 1658.099 kg 739.687 kg 918.412kg (55.3%) c Ganja 484124.056 kg 8,43,008.559 Destroyed kg more than seized Hashish 77350.076 kg 12298.578 kg Destroyed more than seized D Cocaine 640.569 kg 0 640.569 kg (100%) 6. CHANDIGARH Item Total Quantity Total Quantity Difference E Seized (!n 10 Destroyed (in vears\ lOvearsl Contraband By relevant 900.179 Kgs 2305 .444 Kgs authorities (71%) 3205.623 Kgs F Morphine 58.393 kg \ 90kg + 88930 58.203 kg Pcs Iniections (99.6%) Heroine 1658.099 kg 739.687 kg 918.412 kg (55.3%) Ganja 484124.056 kg 8,43,008.559 Destroyed kg more than G seized Hashish 77350.076 kg 12298.578 kg Destroyed more than seized Cocaine 640.569 kg 0 640.569 kg (l 00"/o) H 666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] l S.C.R. A 7. DELHI • Delhi has provided two responses. One response has been provided by the NCB, Delhi and the other by the police heads of each of the district. • The response by NCB, Delhi is as follows:-B Item Total Quantity Total Quantity Difference Seized (In 10 Destroyed (in vears\ 10 vears\ Contraband 8891.8373 680.376 kg 8211.4613 kg(92.34%)

c • The Response by the police heads are as follows:-lilln I2tal Quagtijy Il!tal Quantijy Qiffui:nce ~ized (In IQ De~tr2yi:d (in years) 10 years} By relevant D authorities Contraband 52944.577 kg 32443.456 kg 20500.601 (Hashish, (38.72%) Cocaine, Ganja, Heroin etc.) Contrabands 1020669 0 1020669 E (Chemical (100%) Substances in Tablets, lniections) 8. DAMAN AND DIU F The UT Daman and Diu has informed the Total quantity by way of a detailed chart: lli.!!!. Total Quantity Total Quanti!Y Difference Seized (In 10 Destroyed (in ll.!Wl 10 l'.earsj G By relevant authorities Contraband 25.827 kgs 000 kgs 25.827 Kgs (100%) H UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 667 9. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE A Item Total Quantitv Total Quanti~ Difference Sei:red {!n 10 Destroyed {in years) By relevant 10 years} authorities Contraband 174185.687kg 2859.448 Kg 171326.23 B 9 198.3%) 10. GUJARAT • The Response of the state is divided into two parts. •One has been provided by the office of the Ministry of Home Affairs. • As per the said response the total amount of contraband seized c in 10 years are 28340.047 Kg. No division of the type has been provided. • The total destruction in the last IO years however is only 132.375 Kg • The total amount of Contraband sti II in custody of the atrthorities is 28207.672 Kgs, i.e. 99.53% of the seized amount. D•The response of the NCB Zonal Unit is as follows:

Item Total Quantity Total Ouantitv Difference Seized {!n 10 Destroyed {in vearS\ 10 vearsl Charas 1421.14 kg 15.056 kgs 1406.084 kg E (98.9%) Opium 17.505 kg 0 17.505 kg ( 100%) Brown Sugar 2.03 kg 0 2.03 kg ( 100%) Heroin 3.066 kg 0 (981 gms of 3.066 kg F Heroin was (100%) destroyed in 2000, however all the seizures have been made oost2003) G Others 3766.126 kg+ 525 kgs 3241.126 kgs 299 ltrs. + 1022 (86.05%) + Tablets 229 ltrs ( 100%)+ 1022 Tablets ( 100%) H 668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. A 11. GOA The UT Chandigarh has informed the Total quantity by way.of a detailed chart: Item Total Quantit:i: Total Quantit:i: Difference Seized !}n 10 Destro:i:ed {in :i:ears) By 10 :i:ears} B relevant authorities Contraband 548.746 kg.>. 000 kgs 548.7476 kgs ( 100"/o) 12. HARYANA c Item Total Quantit:i: Total Quantit:i: Difference Seized {In 10 Destro:i:ed {in vears\ 10 vears\ Ganja 2604.077 kg 521.133 kg 2082.944 kg (79%) D Charas 7252513 kg 533.46 kg 6719.053 kg (92.64%) Opium 1086387 kg 1972.860 Destroyed more than seized E Smack 8200.00 kg 4169.919 kg 4030.081 kg (49.14%) Heroine 1.046 kg 1.300 kg Destroyed more than seized F Brown Sugar 2.001 kg 1.003 kg 998 kg ( 49.87°/o) Cocaine 325 kg 0 .325 kg ( 100%\ 13. HIMAO-IALPRADESH 1l1e State ofHimachal Pradesh has infom1ed the Total quantity G biyway of a detai'l ed c11art: Item TQl:al Quantit:i: Total Quantitx Differenci: Seized (In 10 Destro:i:ed {in vears\ 10 vears)

Contraband 17026.714 1856.913 15169.801 (89.09%) H UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJI.] 669 14 JHARKHAND A Item Total Quantity Total Q!!antity Difference Seized (In 10 Destro:i:ed (in vears) lOyears} Ganja 1793.381 kg 0 (area of 1793.381 kg cultivation has (100%) been destroved) B Opium 360.59 kg 0 360.59 kg (100%) Brown Sugar 1.576 kg 0 l.576 kg (100%) Heroine 546 kg 0 546 kg (100%) c 15. KERALA Item Total Quanti!}: Total Quanti!l; Difference Seized {In 10 Destro:i:ed {in years} 10 years) Ganja 7588.543 Kg 2740.926 kg 4847.617kg D (63.88%) Heroine .536 kg 0 .536 kg (100%) Hashish 12.368 kg 0 12.368 (100%) E Char as .063 kg 0 .063 kg (100%) Brown Sugar 8.432 kg 12.058 kg Destroyed more than seized Opium 23.697 kg 0 23.697 kg F (100%) 16. KARNATAKA • The state of Karnataka divided its response in two parts. One is seizure by Police and the Other is seizure by NCB Item Total Quanti!Y Total QuantiJx Difference G Seized {In 10 Destro:i:ed {in vears) 10 vears) Contraband ByNCB 366.838 Kgs OOOkgs 366.838 By relevant Kgs(l00%) authorities 12140.592 15151.041 H 27291.633 Kl!S (55%) 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016) I S.C.R. A 17. MAHARASHTRA Item Total Quanti!Y Total Quanti!Y Difference Seized (In IO Destroyed (in . vearsl 10 vearsl Ganja 1,14.082 kg 8750 kg 1,14,074 kg (92.33%) B Heroin 654 kg 228 kg 426 kg (65.13%) Charas 2364.\XJ kg 471.735 1893.165 (80.05%) Opium 613.044 kg 47.135 kg 565.909 kg (92.31%)

c Cocaine 11.049 kg 0 kg 11.049 kg (100%) 18 MANIPUR Item Total Quantity Total Quanti!l' Difference Seized (In 10 Destro:yed (in years) 10 :years} D Heroin 37.534 kg. 12.498 kg 25.036 kg (66.072%) Ganja 45343.25kg 41963.389 kg 3379.861 kg (Kindly reter (7.45%) to the Notel E Opium 233.985 kg 0 233.985 kg (100%) Hashish 3.05 kg 0 3.05 kg(I00%) Note: The Total amount of Ganja seized post 2005 was 25913.225 kgs and the same is still lying with the authorities since the last pretrial disposal in 2005. F 19. MADHYA PRADESH • Madhya Pradesh has divided its response in two pat1s. One is seizure by Police and the other is seizure by NCB. Item Tutal Quanti!Y Total Quantity Difference Seized {!n IO Destroi;~ (in lO mKi:s G vears) In Kus vears) In Kus Contraband By Police- By Police By Police-004376.528 61384.805 742991.723 Kgs (92%) Destroyed BYNCB more than H 348 kg seized UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 671 A 20. Ministr of Home Affairs NCB Item Total Quantity Total Quan tit)'. Difference Seized {In 10 Destroyed {in 10 )'.ears) !'.ears) B Contraband By relevant authorities 44 76.482 kgs 5344.12 Kgs. 867.638 (16%) c21. ORISSA • Orissa has divided its response in two parts. One is se.izure by Pol ice and the Other is seizure by Excise Officials. Item Total Quan tit)'. Total Quan tit)'. Difference Seized {In 10 Destro:i:ed {in 10 years) years) D Contraband By Police 0.000 By Police-88241.741 Kgs 88241.741 Kgs Bv Excise 0.000 (100%)

34520.854 Kgs By Excise E (100%) 34520.854 Kgs (100%) 22. PUNJAB Item Tutal Quantity Total Quan tit)'. Difference F Seized {In 10 Destroved (in lO i:ears) years) Poppy Husk 8,93,948.452 kg 4,00,678.069 kg 4,93,270.3 83 kg (55.°17%) G Onium 4936.031 ke 965.818 k!! 3970.213 kg . _(80.43%) - - - ---·~ -- --- -·----Smack 20045.293 kg 104.631 kg 19940.662 (99.47%) H 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. A 23. RAJASIHAN 'Item Tut al Quantity Total Quanti!:£ Difference Seized {!n 10 Destroyed (in years) IO years) B Brown Sugar 146.996 kg 23.381 kg 123.615 kg (84.094%) Heroine 173.216 kg 3.25 kg 169.966 kg (98.12%\ Smack 275.246 kg 82.423 kg 192.823 kg c (70.05%) Opium 6687.081 kg 2006.745 kg 4680.335 kg (69.99%) Charas 935.602 kg 1192.309 Destroyed more than seized D Ganja 176289.677 kg 2578.712 kg 174250.965 kg (98.84%) Poppy Straw 99684.05 kgs 1.34,652.55 kg Destroyed more than seized. 24. SIKKIM E Item Total Quanti!v Total Quanti!Y Difference Seized (!n IO Destroyed (in years) Bv IO years) relevant authorities F N-IO Capsure 9156 ** 9156 ( 100%) 277367 Spasmo 277367 •• Proxyvon (100%) Cansule Corex/ 3033 •• 3033 G Phensidylerec (100%) odex Otllers •• 203.92gms . **The State Governn1ent of Sikkim has replied that the destruction rt done as per the orders of the Trial Court on the conclusion of Trial. However, no details related to disposal has been provided. H UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 673 A25. TAMILNADU

Difference Item Total Quan tine Total Quantit:y Seized (!n 10 Destro:yed {in vears) 10 vears) Ganja(Dry 656778 kg 19366.98 kg 637411.02 kg B +Green) (97.051%) Charas 13 kg I kg 12 kg (92.30%) Heroin 66.42 kg 66.425 kg 0 Cocaine I kg 15.4 kg Destroyed more than c seized Brown 0.015 kg 0 0.015 kg Smmr ( 100%) Opium 30.4 kg l.738kg 29.262 kg (96.25%) Hash Oil JO kg I kg 9 kg(90%) D Tidigesic I 3627 vials 4095 vials 9532 vials in.i. (69.94%) Norphine I 12 amps 0 112amps ( 100%) Bosikka 9 0 9(100%) E Diazepam 9.085 kg+ 2706 4.5 I (kg or vial vials not sure) Poppy 246.75 kg 125.05 kg 12l.7kg Cap/Straws (49.32%) Avil 350 tabs+ 55 vials 0 350 tabs+ 55 vials F 26. TRIPURA Item Total Quantitt Total Quantit:y Difference Seized (!n 10 Destro:yed {in vears) 10 vears) G Ganja 9178.8 2642.5 kg 6536.3 kg (71.21%) Ganja Dust 436 kg 87 kgs 349 kgs (80.04%) ~ H 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. A 27. UITAR PRADESH • There is huge discrepancy between the Quantity seized and the Quantity destroyed. .!1m!. Total Quanti!l; Tgtal Quanlit~ J..!if(erenc£ Seized {In lO Destroyed {in vearsl 10 vears) B Opium 1278.016 kg 198.025 kg 1079.99 kg (84.5%) Smack 455.543 kg 244.443 kg 211.lkg (46.3%) Heroin 503.664kg 13.759 kg 489.905 kg c Ganja 92525.859 11,820.191 kg (97.2%)80705.668 kg (87.22%\ Charas 9099.432 kg 2234.481 kg 6864.951 kg (75.44%) Intoxicating 3658.065 kg 1035.275 kg 2622.79 Kg Powder (Cocaine) (71.69%)

D Brown Sugar 51.455 kg I.I kg 51.355 kg (99.8%\ Posta Drug 16224.591 kg 5081.988 kg 11,142.603 kg (68.67%) 28. UITARAKHAND lli!!! Total Quantitr Total Quantitr Difference E Seized (In IO Des!ro~ed (in vearsl 10 vearsl Charas 1252.091 kg 330.459 kg 921.632 kg (73.60%) Doda 6783.765 kg 330.459 kg 6453.306 (95.12%) F Opium 28.899kg 1.859 kg 27.04kg (93.567%) Heroine 154.454 kg 0 154.454 kg (100%) Intoxicating 224!3 Nos 4668 Nos. 17745 Nos Tablets (79.17%) Ganja ll21.740kg 508.300 kg 613.44 kg G (54.686%) Smack 8.761kg+1022 0.432 kg+ 530 8.329 kg packets Packets (95.06%) + 492 Pkts 148.140%l Injection 1924 Nos 5 Nos. 1919 Nos (99.74%) H Brown Sugar .3 89 kg 0 .389 kg (100%) UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 675 A29 WEST BENGAL Item Total Quantit:Y Total Quantitv Difference Seized {In 10 DestrOl'ed {in I 0 l'ti!r~l D::r rs;levant lill.W authn riths Contraband 88520.J JI 7 kg 0 88520.JJ 17 k[!(J00o/o1 BNote:- West Be11gal ltas stated tltal it does not have atty i111111ediate records available of destruction. 5. /11 regard to the storage of1VDPS ~;ubstances, !he State Governments and the Central Agencies ha1'e furnished information ll'l11cli the learned Amicus Curiae has tabulated as under: Annexure D c Delhi Govt. G uiara t Govt. Guwahati Govt. Yes. specified store for No specific NBC Gu wahati Zonal Unit storage of the seized store. is running from a rented contraband in Delhi house and one secured Zonal Unit. room is earmarked as

storal!e nlace. Imphal Go\•t. M izoram G O\'t, Tripura Govt. D Stored in god own No s~ec ific No specified store. of NCB -1 after store sealing. l\1eghalaya Go\'t. Uttar Pradesh J\•I aha rash tra Govt. Govt., Goa and Daman Diu Excise Malkhana is UP has no No specific store in generally used to store specific place Maharashtra for storage. E contrabands. for storage of the narcotic In Goa: Mala khan a at All district Excise office drugs. Police Station. have their own M alkhana rooms. Daman & Diu and Dadar & Nagar Haveli: Kept in M alkhn na Police Station. Then sent to storage of F competent Court after chargeshe et is filed. Himachal Cbhattisgarh A ndhra Pradesh Pradesh Govt. Govt. Govt. No sp·ecified area. No separate No specified area. storage. G Rajasthan Govt. Sikkim GO\'t. llttarakhand Govt. No specific store. No storage. No specific store. Jbarkhand Govt. Kerala Govt. Karnataka Govt. No specific store. No specific No notified store. storae:e. H 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. A Madhya Pradesh Orissa Govt. Bihar Govt Govt Yes, NCB Zonal Unit No specific Patna Zonal Unit of NCB Indore ahs ll'e II-secured store. has specified room specific maalkhana Withdrawal only under (Submissions by NCB order of the Court. B Indore Zonal unit) No specific Store for storage after seizure by Police Station. (Submissions by Police Heads) c Punjab Govt. Haryana Govt Chandigarh Govt.

No specified Malkhana in all A Room called Malkhana store. police stations for is specifically designated storage of to keep the seized contraband contrabands. Narcotics Drugs D and Psychotropic Substances. Tamil Nadu Customs and Directorate of Revenue Central Excise Intelligence E No Spedfic storage No specific storage No specific store of its space. is available own. NCB, Jodhpur NCB, Chandigarh West Bengal Zone Zone F Yes, But no sub¥zone A separate room The seized goods are available. has been specified stored in Police Station for storage of Malkhana under the charge seized contraband. of a designated Police Officer and supeivision of officer in charge of Police G Station. 6. Similarly, in answer to the query as to the steps taken at the time of storage to detennine the nature and the quantity of the substance being stored and measures to prevent substitution ancVor pilferage from the stores, the State Governments have sent their replies which too have H been summarised by the Amicus Curiae in the following words: UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJI.] 677 A ANNEXURE-F iii. What are the steps taken at the time of storage to determine the nature and quantity of the substance being store and measures to prevent substitution and pilferage from stores? Delhi Gujarat Guwahati Imphal l\'lizoram Tripura B Govt. Govt. Govt. Go,·t. Govt. Govt.

Proper Writer head Complete Complete Utmost Malkhana entry in of Police process of process of care in officer 1nalkha station classificati classificati \Veighing in charge na maintains on and on and and carefully register 1nuddatnal weighing weighing n1easurem keeps the by ents of drugs of drugs contraban register and officer-in- ds with in the c along with -along which has malkha na complete measures measures charge. 1nalkhana incharg details. All of of @page after e and subsequent prevention prevention IOI of maintaini proper! withdrawal of of sub1n ission ng y and pilferage pilferage s by register. locked redisposition mentioned 1nentioned Mizora1n (q;Pg.No. and are also at at Govt. 3 of D guarded reflected in @ @ Pg. No. submissio · @Pg 10 the Pg.No.52 74 of n by of Delhi tnuddamal of Imphal Tripura Gort. register Guwahati Govt. Govt. sub1niss @Pg.2 of Govt submission ion Gujarat submission Govt. submission E ~ghalaya l! tta r 1\1aharashtr l-liin11ch·a1 Cbhnttisg Andhra Govt. Pradesh a Govt., Pradesh a rh Go,·t. Pradesh Govt. Goa and Govt. G·ovt. Daman Diu.

General After Contraband NDPS is Details of During duty of Seizure is packed seized by all steps to the detecting the and kept investigati determine storage F officer to conccrne safe with ng ofl'icer. the nature the weighi d drug is ,Mudden1al After and details seal the weighed Clerk in san1ples quantity are contra ban Subseque separate are taken, of the entered d \Vith 11tly a cupboard. the sa nle substance in signatures sa1nple is... @ Pg.6. is seized being __ storage of civilian taken out by . 1.0. store and roo1n G \Yitnesses of the Goa: affixing register. with bag and Contraband his o,vn St6re proper both arc seal and entry in \Veighed latei separate! y. H 678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) I S.C.R. A register - Both the packed and resealed by measures room and Jock sample sealed at SHO to prevent is duly it. and main the spot of before substitutio sealed @pg.7 stock are seizure. consigning n and and Annex- ,wrapped Entry m it to the pilferage armed A-2 of in a piece Mudamma, safe from guards B Meghala of cloth register to custody in stores /station ya Govt. and are show chain police elaborated watch Submissi sealed. of malkhana @ Pg.No. are I I ~~---- The movementsand its ofPolice the 3submissioof posted. Acc. To sample is custody. @ Station ns by @ Report of sent for pg. 8. Chhattisga pg.no. c Comm. forensic @ Pg.No.3 rh Govt. 2 of Of testing Daman & of HP A.P. Customs and the Diu and Govt. Govt

@Pg.67: main Dadar & submission. submis Stored in packed is Na gar sion Central sealed and Haveli: D Godown kept in the there are in safes malkhana. very and re1note vaults @ Pg.6 of chances of with subn1issio substitution double ns by U.P. I pilferage E locking Govt. as the system , stored under goods are command subject to of a periodical Gazetted inspection F Officer.. Page 9 of the Response Rajasthan Sikkim Utta ra Jharkhand Kera la Karnataka Govt. Govt. khand Govt. Govt. Govt Govt. G ·No specific NDPS NDPS Material During answer. is sa1nple is objects is recovery a Ho\Vever packed sent to sealed and pinch of the packing and tbrensic packed substance is sealed under H UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 679 A resources stamp of laboratory. properly. tested with the for storage IO ' and For help of field are used nature and preventing Page 9 of drug test kit according· quantity substitution, the for an to quantity recorded details Response indicative test. and nature in entered into After positive B of the presence station dial)' indicative contraband of of the result, the individual concerned· officer makes @ Pg.No. witnesses. police detailed 2 of Page II of station. inventory. The submission the Complete seized goods cby Response. safety are stored in Rajasthan measures the Govt. mentioned departmental · in Annex-3 godown or the ·with the judicial govt. godown and submission. only a D representative Page 5 of sampk is sent

-the to the Response laboratol)' for chemical analysis. E @ pg. IO of submission by Karnataka · Govt. F Madhya 0 rissa ·Bihar- Punjab Haryan (4randi Pradesh . Govt. Govt. Govt. a Govt. garb Govt.· . Govt . By NCB Seized Seized Police Weekly Seized Indore drugs drugs officials and contraba Zonal are are deployed fortnight nd is Office. sealed sealed at ·all ly safely G Seized in such and , NDPS reports kept in contraband a produce Maalkha obtained Malkha mannef · d before na. from all na under l6ck . . H 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R. A wrapped in as tc the Court ~tores. concerned No more trans parent minimize and then ~ase regarding details polythene and tl1e stored in property seized/ 1nentioned then in white chances o Maalkha .. egister storage of cloth before pilferage. na after No. 19is NDPS. B sealing and entry in Jnaintained Stock signing it. After registers. Register is Quality and producing Procedure maintaine an1ount of tl1e seize< Pg. No. 3 ~s per and d by field seized drug is goods of Punjab units and also with sub1nissi Police periodical c mentioned in permissim on by •ules 1934. checking the packet. of cour Bihar nspection is done. @ Pg. 5 of tl1e drug: Govt. oy gazette submissions are pfficers. @pg. 121 by M.P. Govt deposited [email protected]. of By police u1 16andl7 submissio heads of maalkhana pf n of D districts: in seale< ~ubmissio Haryana A seizun condition 1 by Govt. memo is agai1 with Punjab prepared u/s 55 proper Povt.

ofNDPS Act a entry ar> the time 0 wider th• E storage in th< custody o police statior Maa!khan malkhana and a Officer. sealed b~ Station HouS< Page 2 anc Officer. 3 of th< Necessary Response. F entries ar< made in tlu Rojnamcha and seizec prope1ty register G 1naintained in the polic' station. At page 4 o the Response. 1-1 UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 681 A Tamil Directorate of NCB NCR Zonal Customs N adu Revenue Zonal Office, and Intelligence Officer, Chandigarh Central Jodhnur Excise No such The sealed As per The seized The seized instance contained Govem1ne goods are contraband has containing the nt of India stored lot is deposited B arisen. seized goods is Notificati wise and in the handed over to on, stored under godown/ Custodian circular proper lock malkhana under proper 1/89 page and key on the basis documentation 3 of the under the of the f The Response. supervision particulars c inventory, of ITBP ·mentioned seizure · memo Guard. No in the as well as the one other seizure paper seals on than the memo/ the sealed store in ·panchnama container are charge is Proper D duly signed by authorized and secured the pan ch to enter the packing witnesses, store. and sealing accused and of the seizing officer. Page 6 of contraband The custodian the ensures its are responsible Response. safety. E for appropriate Page 11 of action to the prevent Response. substitution and pilferage. West Bengal F

The seized goods are packed labeled and sealed by the Officer and are handed over to the officer in charge with copy of seizure list. Details are also incotporated in the Malkhana G Register having counter signed of dealing officer. 7. The reports submitted by the State Governments and the Central Agencies further claim that stock registers maintained at the storage sites are periodically checked by the staff mentioned in the reports. H 682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.

A Another question that was asked from the StatJ Governments and the Central Agency relates to the condition of the storage facilities, shortage of storage facilities, if any, and whether any steps have been taken or are being taken to remove the deficiencies. Answers to those queries suggest that no proper storage facilities are available in most of the States. For instance, in Gujarat no special storage facility is available for B keeping the contraband, which is, therefore, stored in general muddamal room. In Assam the NBC Guwahati Zonal Unit is said to be running from a rented house and one secured room is earmarked for storage with triple locking system under the supervision of the Superintendent. In Imphal, the store room is overflowing with contraband. Since there is c shortage of space, pre-trial disposal process has been initiated to decrease congestion in godowns. Although Mizoram Government claims that there is no lack of storage facility, no information as to any specific storage facility being earmarked for the purpose has been provided. In Tripura the enforcement branch is said to be maintaining the malkhana used for. storage of contraband~. In Himachal Pradesh there is no storage facility D except an old building used for the purpose, while in Chhattisgarh the storage facility is satisfactory but not sufficient for bulk storage. Similarly, Rajasthan has scarcity of storage facility. Jharkhand has no.separate storage facility at all whereas Kerala has satisfactory storage facilities only in some of the dis\ric.ts. In Orissa and Bihar the storage facilities E are totally insufficient and unsatisfactory. States of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Goa, Daman Diu and Dadar & Nagar Haveli and Andhra Pradesh claim to have no problems with storage facility while Tamil . Nadu does not have any separate storage.

8. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has not provided any inforination while NCB Zonal Office, Jodhpur has no shortage of space. F NCB Zonal Office, Chandigarh has reported insufficiency of space and has started the process for construction of a specified storage facility. Customs and Central Excise Authority has reported that their godown is full and no more space is available. · 9. In answer to the question as to who is authorised to app!y to G the Court to destroy the seized contraband and whether there has been any failure or dereliction in making such applications and whether any person having technical knowledge of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance (natural and synthetic) is associated with the process of destruction of the contraband: the reply submitted by the State H Governments suggest that different persons in different States have been UNION OF !NOIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 683 authorised to make such applications to the Courts concerned except in A Tripura where no particular person is authodsed. In some cases Officer-in- charge of the Police Station has been authorised while in others the

1.0. is also empowered to apply for permission to destroy the contraband. In answer to the question whether any action has been taken against anyone who should have applied for permission to destroy the narcotics B but had not done so, State Governments have all answered in the negative implying thereby that either no dereliction of duty has occurred on the part of any officer competent to apply for destruction or no action has been taken for any such dereliction. · I 0. Similarly, regarding the steps taken at the time of destruction c to determine the nature and quantity of the substance being destroyed, the reports submitted by the State Governments give varying answers. There is no uniformity in the procedure adopted by those associated or in charge of the process of destruction. The reports suggest as if adequate steps are taken to prevent damage, loss, pilferage and tampering/ substitution of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances from the D point of search to the point of destruction but there is no uniformity or standard procedure prescribed or followed in that regard. Having said that we must mention that we are in these proceedings concerned with the following three issues only for the present: (i) Seizure and sampling of the Narcotic drugs and E Psychotropic substances (ii) their storage and (iii) their destruction Seizure and sampling: F

11. Section 52-A(l) of the NDPS Act, 1985 empowers the Central Government to prescribe by a notification the procedure to be followed for seizure, storage and disposal of drugs and psychotropic substances. The Central Government have in exercise of that power issued Standing Order.No. 1/89 which prescribes the procedure to be G followed while conducting seizure of the contraband. Two subsequent standing orders one dated 10.05.2007 and the other.dated 16.01.2015 deal with disposal and destruction of seized contraband and do not alter · or add to the earlier standing order that prescribes the procedure for conducting seizures. Para 2.2 of the Standing Order 1/89 states that samples must be taken from the seized contrabands on the spot at the H 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R. A time of recovery itself. It reads:

"2.2. All the packages/containers shall be serially numbered and kept in lots for sampling. Samples from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search B witnesses (Panchas) and the person from whose possession the drug is recovered, and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchnama drawn on the spot. " Most of the States, however, claim that no samples are drawn at the time of seizure. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is by far the only agency which claims that samples are drawn at the time of seizure, c while Narcotics Control Bureau asserts that it does not do so. There is thus no uniform practice or procedure being followed by the States or the Central agencies in the matter of drawing of samples. This is, therefore, an area that needs to be suitably addressed in the light of the statutory provisions which ought to be strictly observed given the D seriousness of the offences under the Act and the punishment prescribed by law in case the same are proved. We propose to deal with the issue no matter briefly in an attempt to remove the confusion that prevails regarding the true position as regards drawing of samples. 12. Section 52A as amended by Act 16 of 2014, deals with E disposal of seized drugs and psychotropic substa11ces. It reads: "Section 52A : Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

(I) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic F substances, their vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space or any other relevant considerations, by notification published in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or class of narcotic drugs or class of psychotropic G substances which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. (2) Where any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance has H been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 685 nearest police station or to the officer empowered under A section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (I) shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the narcotic B drugs or psychotropic substances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (I) may consider relevant to the identity of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of- c

(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs of such drugs or substances and certifying such photographs D as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the- presence· of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (3) When an application is made under sub-section (2), the E Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of {narcotic F drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] and any list of samples drmvn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.]" 13. It is manifest from Section 52A (2)(c) (supra) that upon seizure Gof the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true and (c) to H 686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R.

A draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. Sub-section

(3) of Section 52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty B bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the c supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A( 4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and D (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure. Be that as it may, a conflict between the statutory provision governing taking E of samples and the standing order issued by the Central Government is evident when the two are placed in juxtaposition. There is no gainsaid that such a conflict shall have to be resolved in favour of the statute on first principles of interpretation but the continuance of the statutory notification in its present form is bound to create confusion in the minds of the authorities concerned instead of helping them in the discharge of F their duties. The Central Government would, therefore, do well, to re-examine the matter and take suitable steps in the above direction.

14. Mr. Sinha, learned Amicus, argues that if an amendment of the Act stipulating that the samples be taken at the time of seizure is not possible, the least that ought to be done is to make it obligatory for the G officer conducting the seizure to apply to the Magistrate for drawing of samples. and certification etc.· without any loss of time. The officer conducting the seizure is also obliged to report the act of seizure and the making of the application to the superior officer in.writing so thatthere is a certain amount of accountability in the ·entire exercise, which as at H present gets neglected for a variety of reasons. There is in our opinion UNION OF INDIA v.. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJI.) 687 no manner of doubt that the seizure.of the contraband must be followed A by an application for drawing of samples and certification as contemplated under the Act. There is equally no doubt that the proc.ess of making any such application and resultant sampling and certification cannot be left to the whims of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general and Section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of Bmaking of an application or the drawing of samples and certification. While we see no room for prescribing or reading a time frame into the provision, we are of the view that an application for sampling and certification ought to be made without undue delay and the Magistrate on receipt of any such applicaiion will be expected to attend to the application and do the needful, within a reasonable period and without c any undue delay or procrastination as is mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 52A (supra). We hope and trust that the High Courts will keep a close watch on the performance of the Magistrates in this regard and through the Magistrates on the agencies that are dealing with the menace of drugs which has taken alarming dimensions in this country partly Dbecause of the ineffective and lackadaisical enforcement of the laws and procedures and cavalier manner in which the agencies and at times Magistracy in this country addresses a problem of such serious dimensions. • --~

STORAGE: E 15. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 does not make any special provision regulating storage of the contraband substances. All that Section 55 of the Act envisages is that the officer in charge of a Police Station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody · the seized article pending orders of the Magistrate concerned.·There is Fno provision nor was any such provision pointed out to us by learned counsel forthe parties prescribing the nature of the storage facilitfto be used for storage of the contraband substances. Even so the importance of adequate storage facilities for safe deposit and storage of the contraband material has been recognised by the Government inasmuch as Standing Order No.1/89 has made specific provisions in regard to the G same. Section Ill of the said Order tleals with "Receipt of Drugs in Godowns and Procedure" which inter alia provides that all drugs shall invariably be stored in "safes and vaults" provided with double locking system and that the agencies of the Central and the State Governments· may specifically designate their godowns for storage purposes and such H 688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R.

A godowns should be selected keeping in view their security angle, juxtaposition to courts etc. We may usefully extract paras 3 .2 to 3.9 comprising Section Ill supra at this stage for ready reference: "'3.2. All drugs invariably be stored in safes and vaults provided with double-locking system. Agencies of the Central B and State Governments, may specifically, designate their godowns for storage purposes. The godowns should be selected keeping in view their security angle, juxtaposition to courts etc. 3.3 Such godowns, as a matter of rule, shall be placed under the over-al/ supenision and charge of a Gazetted Officer of c the respective enforcemellf agency, who shall exercise utmost care, circumspection and personal supervision as far as possible. Each seizing officer shall deposit the drugs fully packed and sealed in the godown within 48 hours of such seii'ure, with a forwarding memo indicating NDPS Crime No. D as per Crime and Prosecution (C & P Register) under the new law, name of the accused, reference of test memo, description of the drugs, total no. of packages/containers ef£. 3.4 The seizing officer, after obtaining an acknowledgement E for such deposit in the format (Annexure-I). shall hand acknowledged over such to the Investigation Officer of the case along with the case dossiers for further proceedings.

3. 5 The officer-in-charge of the godown, before accepting the deposit of drugs, shall ensure that the same are properly F packed and sealed. He shall also arrange the packages! containers (case-wise and lot-wise) for quick retrieval etc. 3. 6 The godown-in-charge is required to maillfain a register wherein entries of receipt should be made as per format at Annexure-Il G 3. 7 It shall be incumbent upon the Inspecting Officers of the various Departments mentioned at Annexure II to make frequent visits to the godowns for ensuring adequate security and safety and for taking measures for timely disposal of drugs. The Inspecting Officers should record their remarks! H observations against Col. I 5 of the Format at Annexure-ll. UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 689 3.8 The Heads·of the respective enforcement agencies (both A Central and State Governments) may prescribe such periodical reports and returns, as they may deem fit, to monitor the safe receipt, deposit, storage. accounting and disposal of seized drugs.

3.9 Since the early disposal of drugs assumes utmost B consideration and importance, the enforcement agencies may obiain orders for pre-trial disposal of drugs and other articles (including conveyance, if any) by having recourse to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the Act. " It is evident from a plain reading of para 3.2 (supra) that storage of all c drugs in safes and vaults has been made mandatory and that agencies of the Central and the State Governments have been permitted to designate their godowns for storage purposes. It is also clear that keeping in view the importance of protecting the seized drugs against theft, substitution or pilferage the Central Government has prescribed that such godowns Dshall be placed under the overall supervision and charge of a gazetted officer of the respective enforcement agencies who shall exercise utmost care, circumspection and personal supervision over the storage facilities. The provision contained in paras 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 also are aimed at ensuring that the godown or storage facility is satisfactory and those in-charge of the same are made accountable for its upkeep and effective E management. Subsequent Notification including Notification dated 16"' •January, 2015 have in no way diluted the above requirement. The result is that there is a statutory framework which governs the storage of drugs and matters relating and incidental thereto. The question is whether the said statutory mechanism has been effectively implemented by the FCentral Government agencies and by the State Governments. Our answer regretfully is in the negative. It is evident from the responses received from the State and the Central Government agencies that no notified storage facility-godown has been established for storage of the seized drugs. Even the Narcotics Control Bureau has admitted to using mallkhana of the Courts for storage of the seized drugs in certain cases G and in certain circumstances. The Customs and Central Excise Department and DRI have also stated that they have no designated storage facility for storage of contraband. The position in the States is no different. Due to non-availability of any designated godown-facility with adequate vaults and double lock system, the seized contraband is stored in police maalkhana which is a common storage facility for all H 690 SUPREME COlJf REPORTS [2016] l S.C.R.

A kinds of goods and weapons seized in connection with all kinds of offences including those specified by the !PC. This is a total.ly unhappy and unacceptable situati_on to say the least. It is indeed unfortunate that even after a lapse of26 years since Standing Order No. 1189 was issued, the Central Government or its agencies and the State Governments have paid little or no attention to the need for providing adequate storage B facilities Of-the kind stipulated in Standing Order No. 1189 with the necessary supervisory and other controls prescribed in :'\ection Ill of the said order. The result is that while Standing Order No. 1189 very early in point oftirile recognized the need for providing adequate and effective storage facilities by the States and the Central Government agencies,"·--c the failure on the part of the Central Government and the State Governments to provide for such storage has defeated, if not completely negated the very purpose underlying the said notification and the provisions made therein. There is as on date hardly any credible protection againsttheft, replacement, pilferage and destruction of the seized drugs on account of the wholly unsatisfactory and unscientific method of storage D of drugs and psychotropic substances whiclrat times hit the headlines in newspapers on account of what is often described by the agencies as "big catch" worth crores of rupees in the international market. Wh,at has defied our understanding is the neglect on the part of the Central Government and its agencies and the State Governments in realizing the E importance of the storJtge facilities and in providing for the same to prevent hazardous and at times lethal substances with great potential to do harm to those wh'o use the same from being replaced, pilfered, stolen or siphoned out on account of very poor supervision, control or invigilation over such storage facilities. The learned -amicus has in that view very right!)' argued that there is a complete failure on the part of the Central F Government aod its agencies as also the State Governments in taking adequate steps for providing proper storage facilities with proper system of supervision and control over the drugs tharare stored in the same. It was contended by Mr. Sinha, and in our Opi.(lion rightly· so, that the cumulative effect of the reports submitted by the States and the Central G agencies is that only 16% of the contrabands seized between 2002 to 2012 have been actually disposed of. What happened td the remaining 84% of such seizures is anybody's guess and ifit is still lying in the police maalkhana; why has nobody ever bothered to apply for their disposal _ according to the procedure established by law is hard to fathom. TJie fact that the States and the Central Government agencies have accepted H

UNION OF iNDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 691 that no specific register is maintained by the State Police and that general A maalkhana register alone is being maintained for the seized drugs shows the neglect of all concerned towards this important aspect and the cavalier manner in which the issue regarding storage of ceased drugs is approached by them. Absence of periodical inspection of the storage facility and the absence of any record suggesting that any inspection has Bbeen carried out by any of the officers shows a complett>failure bordering criminal negligence by officers who are supposed to be taking action in this regard but have failed to do so.

16. The menace of drugs in this country, as observed earlier has alanning dimensions and proportions. Studies based on conferences and cseminars have very often shown tliat the menace is deep rooted not only because drug lords have the money power and transnational links but also because the enforcement agencies like the Police and at times politicians in power help them in carrying on what is known to be a money spinning and flourishing trade. We only hope that the failure of the Central Government agencies and the State Governments in providing D what is the .bare minimum in terms of infrastructure required to artest the growing menace and prevent pilferage and re-circulation of drugs back into the market is not oh account of any unholy connect between the drug traffickers and the enforcement agencies. We woula comfort ourselves by presuming them to be relatable only to apathy and E indifference and hopethl!tthe system does not get corrupted by continued neglect lest all hopes are lost in the fight.against drug menace which are eating into the vitals of our society. It is in that spirit that we deem it necessary to issue appropriate· directions to the Central Government agencies and to the States to set up adequate storage facilities with effective supervisory and regulatory controls as prescribed in Notification F No. 1/89. Disposal of Drugs:

17. Section 52A as amended provides for disposal of the seized .. contraband in the manner stipulated by the Government under Clause I of that Section: Notification dated 16"' January, 2015 has, in supersession G of the earlier notification dated JOlhMay, 2007 not only stipulates that all drugs and psychotropic substances have. to be disposed off but also identifies the officers who shall initiate action fur disposal and the procedure to be followed for such disposal. Para 4 of the Notification inter alia, provides that officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall H 692 SUPREME C01",f REPORTS [2016) I S.C.R. A within 30 days from the date of receipt of chemical analysis report of drugs, psychotropic substances or controlled substances apply to any Magistrate under Section 52A(2) in terms of Annexure 2 to the said Notification.

18. Sub-para (2) of Para (4) provides that after the Magistrate · B allows the application under sub-section (3) of Section 52A, the officer mentioned in sub para (I) of Para (4) shall preserve the certified inventory, photographs and samples drawn in the presence of the Magistrate as primary evidence for the case and submit details of seized items to the Chairman of the Drugs Disposal committee for a decision by the c Committee on the question of disposal. The officer shall also send a copy of the details along with the items seized to the officer in-charge of the godown. Para (5) of the notification provides for constitution of the Drugs Disposal Committee while para (6) specifies the functions which the Committee shall perform. In para (7) the notification provides for procedure to be followed with regard to disposal of the seized items, D while para (8) stipulates the quantity or the value upto which the Drugs Disposal Committee can order disposal of the seized items. In terms of proviso to para (8) ifthe consignments are larger in quantity or of higher value than those indicated in the table, the Drugs Disposal Committee is required to send its recommendations to the head of the department who shall then order their disposal by a high level Drugs Disposal E Committee specially constituted for that purpose. Para (9) prescribes the mode of disposal of the drugs, while para (10) requires the Committee to intimate to the head of the Department the programme of destruction and vestthe head of the Department with the power to conduct a surprise check or depute an officer to conduct such checks on destruction operation. Para (11) deals with certificate of destruction while paras F

(12) and (13) deal with details of sale to be entered into the godown register and communication to be sent to Narcotic Control Bureau.

19. There are two other aspects that need to be noted at this stage. The first is that notification dated I 6" January, 2015 does not in terms supersede Standing Order No. I /89 insofar as the said Standing G Order also prescribes the procedure to be followed for disposal ofNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances. Specific overriding of the earlier Standing Order would have avoided a certain amount of confusion which is evident on account of simultaneous presence of Standing Order No. 1189 and notification dated 16" January, H 2015. For instance in para (I) of Standing Order No. 1189 only certain UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJI.] 693 narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances enumerated therein could A be disposed of while notification dated l 6'h January, 2015 provides for disposal ofall Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances. Again in terms of Standing Order No. I /89 the procedure for making of application was marginally different from the one stipulated in Notification dated 16"' January, 2015 not only insofar as Bthe procedure related to the officers who could make the application is concerned but also in relation to the procedure that the DOC would follow while directing disposal. In both the notifications are prescribed the limits upto which the disposal could be directed. In case of excess quantity the disposal under the Standing Order No. 1/89 had to be done in the presence of the head of the Department whereas according to c notification of2015 in the event of excess quantity or value the disposal has to be by a high !eve I Drug Disposal Committee to be constituted by the head of the Department. Again while Standing Order No. 1/89 specifically required the approval of the Court for disposal, notification dated 16'" January, 2015 does not stipulate such approval as a specific Dcondition. Be that as it may, to the extent the subsequent notification prescribes a different procedure, we treat the earlier notification/Standing Order No. 1/89 to have been superseded. In order to avoid any confusion arising out of the continued presence of two notifications on the same subject we make it clear that disposal ofNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances shall be carried out in the E following manner till such time the Government prescribes a different procedure for the same:

(1) Cases where the trial is concluded and proceedings in appeal/revision have all concluded finally: F In cases that stood finally concluded at the trial, appeal, revision and further appeals, if any, before 29'" May, 1989 the continued storage of drugs and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is of no consequence not only because of the considerable lapse oftime since the conclusion of the proce~dings but also because the process of certification and disposal after verification G and testing may be an idle formality. We say so because ev.~n if upon verification and further testing of the seized contraband in such already concluded cases it is found that the same is either replaced,· stolen or pilferaged, it will be difficult if not impossible to fix the responsibility for such theft, replacement or pilferage at this distant point in time. That H apart, the storage facility available with the States, in whatever 694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R.

A satisfactory or unsatisfactory conditions the same exist, are reported to be over-flowing with seized contraband goods. It would, therefore, be just and proper to direct that the Drugs Disposal Committees of the States and the Central agencies shall take stock of all such seized contrabands and take steps for their disposal without any further verification, testing or sampling whatsoever. The concerned heads of B the Department shall personally supervise the process of destruction of drugs so identified for disposal. To the extent the seized Drugs and Narcotic Substances continue to choke the storage facilities and tempt the unscrupulous to indulge in pilferage and theft for sale or circulation in the market, the disposal of the stocks will reduce the hazards that go c with their continued storage and availability in the market. (2) Drugs that are seized after May, 1989 and where the trial and appeal and revision have also been finally disposed of:

In this category of cases while the seizure may have taken place afterthe introduction of Section 52A in the Statute book the non-disposal D of the drugs over a long period of time would also make it difficult to identify individuals who are responsible for pilferage, theft, replacement or such other mischief in connection with such seized contraband. The requirement of para 5.5 of standing order No. 1189 for such drugs to be disposed of after getting the same tested will also be an exercise in E futility and impractical at this distant point in time. Since the trials stand concluded and so also the proceedings in appeal, Revision etc. insistence upon sending the sample from such drugs for testing before the same are disposed of will be a fruitless exercise which can be dispensed with having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the conditions prevalent in the maalkhanas and the so called godowns and storage F facilities. The DDCs shall accordingly take stock of all such Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances in relation to which the trial of the accused persons has finally concluded and the proceedings have attained finality at all levels in the judicial hierarchy. The DDCs shall then take steps to have such stock also destroyed under the direct supervision of the head of the Department G concerned.

(3) cases in which the proceedings are still pending before the Courts at the level of trial court~llate court or before the Supreme Court: In such cases the heads of the Department concerned shall ensure H that appropriate applications are moved by the officers competent to do UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 695 so under Notification dated 16"' January, 2015 before the Drugs Disposal A Committees concerned and steps for disposal of such Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances taken without any further loss of time. 20. To sum up we direct as under: B (1) No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an c application under Section 52A(ii) of the Act, which shall be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be required under Sub-Section 3 of Section 52A, as discussed by us in the body of this judgment under the heading 'sejzure and sampling'. The sampling shall be done under the supervision D of the magistrate as discussed in paras 13 and 14 of this order.

(2) The Central Government and its agencies and so also the State Governments shal I within six months from today take appropriate steps to set up storage facilities forthe exclusive storage of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and E controlled Substances and Conveyances duly equipped with vaults and double locking system to prevent theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. The Central Government and the State Governments shall also designate an officer each for their respective storage facility and F provide for other steps, measures as stipulated in Standing Order No. 1/89 to ensure proper security against theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. (3) The Central Government and the State Governments shall be free to set up a storage facility for each district in the G States and depending upon the extent of seizure and store required, one storage facility for more than one districts. (4) Disposal of the seized drugs currently lying in the police maalkhans and other places used for storage shall be carried out by the DDCs concerned in terms of the directions issued H 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R. A by us in the body of this judgment under the heading 'disposal of drugs'.

21. Keeping in view the importance of the subject we request the Chief Justices of the High Courts concerned to appoint a Committee of Judges on the administrative side to supervise and monitor progress made B by the respective States in regard to the compliance with the above directions and wherever necessary, to issue appropriate directions for a speedy action on the administrative and even on the judicial side in public interest wherever considered necessary. 22. List the appeal for final hearing now on an early date. c Kalpana K. Tripathy Matter Adjourned.

[2016) 1 S.C.R. 651 UNION OF INDIA A v. MOHANLAL & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 652 of2012) JANUARY 28, 2016 B [T. S. THAKUR, CJI. AND KURIAN JOSEPH, J.) National Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -s.52A - Seizure, storage and disposal of psychotropic substances -Standing Order 1189 dated 13.6.1989 prescribing procedure for cconducting seizure and disposal of the contraband - Standing orders dated 10.5.2007 a71d 16.1.2015 prescribing procedure for disposal and destruction of seized contraband - Non-observance of uniform practice or procedure by the States or the Central Agencies in the matter of drawing samples - No provision in the Act regulating storage of the contraband- Standing Order dated 16.1.2015 not D superseding the previous Standing Order 1189 - Held: There is no provision in the Act mandating taking of samples at the time of seizure

- There is conflict between statutory provision and the standing order regarding taking of samples - Central Government directed . to re-examine the matter and take suitable steps in this direction -EAn application for sampling and certification needs to be made without undue delay and .the Magistrate on receipt of any such application is expected to attend to ·the application within reasonable period without undue delay - High Courts to keep a close watch on the performance of the Magistrates - Central Government and the State agencies have not established any notified storage faci/ity- F godown for storage of seized drugs with proper system of supervision and control over the stored drugs - Such failure shows a complete failure bordering criminal negligence by officers who are supposed to be taking action in this regard - Direction issued to the Central Government and State agencies to set up adequate storage facilities Gwith effective supervisory and regulatory controls as prescribed under standing Order 1189 - The Standing Order 1189 would be treated to have been superseded to the extent the subsequent Standing Order dated 16.01.2015 prescribes a different procedure for destruction/disposal of seized contrabands - Direction to dispose of the contraband in the manner specified in the present judgment H 651 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] l S.C.R.

A - The Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to appoint a Committee of Judges on the administrative side to supervise and monitor progress made by the respective States in regard to the compliance with the direction in the- present case. Ad,journing the matter, the Court B HELD: 1.1 Section 52-A(l) of the National Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 empowers the Central Government to prescribe by a Notification the procedure to be followed for seizure, storage and disposal of drugs and psychotropic substances. The Central Government have in exercise of that power issued Standing Order No. 1189 which c prescribes the procedure to be followed while conducting seizure of the contraband. Two subsequent stantling orders one dated 10.05.2007 and the other dated 16.01.2015 deal with disposal and destruction of seized contraband and do not alter or add to the earlier standing order that prescribes the procedure for D conducting seizures. [Para 11] [683-F-H]

1.2 Para 2.2 of the Standing Order 1/89 states that samples must be taken from the seized contrabands on the spot at the time of recovery itself. There is no uniform practice or procedure being followed by the States or the Central agencies in the matter of drawing of samples. This is, therefore, an area that needs to E be suitably addressed in the light of the statutory provisions which ought to b" strictly observed given the seriousness of the offences under the Act and the punishment prescribed by law in case the same are proved. The Court proposes to deal with the issue in an attempt to remove the confusion that prevails regarding the F true position as regards drawing of samples. [Para 11] [683-H; 684-A, DJ 1.3 Section 52A as amended by Act 16 of 2014, deals with disposal of seized drugs and psychotropic substances. In view of s. 52A(2)(c) no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the G officer empowered, the officer concerned is, in law, duty hound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true and (c) to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate H and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL 653

These samples are then to be enlisted and the correctness of the A list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. Thus, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes Bplace in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. There is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of c samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure. [Paras 12, 13) (684-E; 685-G-H; 686-A-D]

1.4 A conflict between the statutory provision governing taking of samples and the standing order issued by the Central DGovernment is evident when the two are placed in juxtaposition. There is no gainsaid that such a conflict shall have to be resolved in favour of the statute on first principles of interpretation but the continuance of the statutory notification in its present form is bound to create confusion in the minds of.the authorities concerned instead of helping them in the discharge of their duties. E The Central Government would, therefore, do well, to re-examine the matter and take suitable steps in the above direction. [Para 13] (686-E-F)

1.5. There is no manner of doubt that the seizure of the contraband must be followed by an application for drawing of Fsamples and certification as contemplated under the Act. There is equally no doubt thatthe process of making any such application and resultant sampling and certification cannot be left to the whim• of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general a,- _ Section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matte; of making of an application or the drawing of samples and G certification. While, there is no room for prescribing or reading a time frame into the provision, an application for sampling and certification ought to be made without undue delay and the Magistrate on receipt of any such application will be expected to attend to the application and do the needful, within a reasonable Hperiod and without any undue delay or procrastination as is 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) I S.C.R. A mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 52A. The High Courts will keep a close watch on the performance of the Magistrates in this regard and through the Magistrates on the agencies that are dealing with the menace of drugs which has taken alarming dimensions in the country partly because of the ineffective and lackadaisical enforcement of the laws and procedures and cavalier B manner in which the agencies and at times Magistracy in the country addresses a problem of such serious dimensions. [Para 14] [686-H; 687-A-D]

1.6 No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is c effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an application under Section 52A(ii) of the Act, which shall be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be required under Sub-Section 3 of Section 52A. The sampling shall D be done under the supervision of the magistrate. [Paras 19-20] [695-B-D]

2.1 The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 does not make any special provision regulating storage of the contraband substances. All that Section 55 of the Act envisages E is that the officer in charge of a Police Station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody the seized article pending orders of the Magistrate concerned. There is no provision nor was any such provision pointed out, prescribing the nature of the storage facility to be used for storage of the contraband substances. Even so the F importance of adequate storage facilities for safe deposit and storage of the contraband material has been recognised by the Government inasmuch as Standing Order No.1/89 has made specific provisions in regard to the same. Section III of the said Order deals with "Receipt of Drugs in Godowns and Procedure" which inter alia provides that all drugs shall invariably be stored G in "safes and vaults" provided with double locking system and that the agencies of the Central and the State Governments may specifically designate their godowns for storage purposes and such godowns should be selected keeping in view their security angle, juxtaposition to courts etc. [Para 15] [687-E-H; 688-A] H 2.2 It is evident from a plain reading of para 3.2 of Section UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL 655

III of Order No.1/89 that storage of all drugs in safes and vaults A has been made mandatory and that agencies of the Central and the State Governments h·ave been permitted to designate their godowns for storage purposes. It is also clear that keeping in view the importance of protecting the seized drugs against theft, substitution or pilferage the Central Government has prescribed Bthat such godowns shall be placed under the overall supervision and charge of a gazetted officer of the respective enforcement agencies who shall exercise utmost care, circumspection and personal supervision over the storage facilities. The provision contained in paras 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 also are aimed at ensuring that the godown or storage facility is satisfactory and those in- c charge of the same are made accountable for its upkeep and effective management. Subsequent Notification including Notification dated 16'' January, 2015 have in no way diluted the above requirement. The result is that there is a statutory framework which governs the storage of drugs and matters Drelating and incidental thereto. [Para 15] [689-C-F]

2.3 The said statutory mechanism has been effectively implemented by the Central Government agencies and by the State Governments. It is evident from the responses received from the State and the Central Government agencies that no E notified storage facility-godown has been established for storage of the seized drugs. Even after a lapse of 26 years since Standing Order No. 1189 was issued, the Central Government or its agencies and the State Governments have paid little or no attention to. the need for providing adequate storage facilities of the kind stipulated in Standing Order No. 1/89 with the necessary F supervisory and other controls prescribed in Section III of the said order. The failure on the part of the Central Government and the State Governments to provide for such storage I· defeated, if not completely negated the very purpose underlyir _, the said notification and the provisions made therein. There is as G on date hardly any credible protection against theft, replacement, pilferage and destruction of the seized drugs on account of the wholly unsatisfactory and unscientific method of storage of drugs and psychotropic substances. [Para 15] [689-F-G; 690-A-D] 2.4 There is a complete failure on the part of the Central Government and its agencies as also the State Governments in H 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] l S.C.R.

A taking adequate steps for providing proper storage facilities with proper system of supervision and control over the drugs that are stored in the same. [Para 15] [690-F] 2.5 The fact that the States and the Central Government agencies have accepted that no specific register is maintained by B the State Police and that general maalkhana register alone is being maintained for the seized drugs shows the neglect of all concerned towards this important aspect and the cavalier manner in which the issue regarding storage of ceased drugs is approached by them. Absence of periodical inspection of the storage facility c and the absence of any record suggesting that any inspection has been carried out by any of the officers shows a complete failure bordering criminal negligence by officers who are supposed to be taking action in this regard but have failed to do so. (Para 15] J690-H; 691-A-BJ . 2.6 Appropriate directions are issued to the Central D Government agencies and to the States to set up adequate storage facilities with effective supervisory and regulatory controls as prescribed in Notification No. 1/89. [Para 16] [691-F]

2. 7 The Central Government and its agencies and so also the State Governments shall within six months from the date of E the present judgment take appropriate steps to set up storage facilities for the exclusive storage of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances duly equipped with vaults and double locking system to prevent theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. The Central Government and the State Governments shall also designate an F officer each for their respective storage facility aud provide for other steps, measures as stipulated in Standing Order No. 1/89 to ensure proper security against theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. [Para 20] [695-E-F] 2 .8 The Central Government and the State Governments G shall be free to set up a storage facility for each district in the States and depending upon the extent of seizure and store required, one storage facility for more thau one districts. (Para 20] (695-G] 3.1 Section 52A as amended provides for disposal of the H UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL 657

seized contraband in the manner stipulated by the Government A under Clause 1 of that Section. Notification dated 16" January, 2015 has, in supersession of the earlier notification dated lO'h May, 2007 not only stipulates that all drugs and psychotropic substances have to be disposed off but also identifies the officers who shall initiate action for disposal and the procedure to be Bfollowed for such disposal. Para 4 of the Notification inter alia, provides that officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall within 30 days from the date of receipt of chemical analysis report of drugs, psychotropic substances or controlled substances apply to any Magistrate under Section 52A(2) in terms of Annexure 2 to the said Notification. [Para 17] [691-G-H; 692-A-B] c

3.2 The notification dated 16'h January, 2015 does not in terms supersede Standing Order No. 1/89 insofar as the said Standing Order also prescribes the procedure to be followed for disposal of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances. Specific overriding of the earlier D Standing Order would have avoided a certain amount of confusion which is evident on account of simultaneous presence of Standing Order No.1189 and notification dated 16" January, 2015. To the extent the subsequent notification prescribes a different procedure, the earlier notification/Standing Order No.1/89 would Ebe treated to have been superseded. In order to avoid any confusion arising out of the continued presence of two notifications on the same subject it is clarified that disposal of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances shall be carried out in the manner specified/provided by this judgment, till such time the Government prescribes a different F procedure for the same. [Para 19] [692-G-H; 693-D-E]

3.3 In respect of cases where the trial is concluded and proceedings in appeal/revision have all concluded finally, before 29" May, 1989, it is directed that the Drugs Disposal Committees of the States and the Central agencies shall take stock of all such G seized contrabands and take steps for their disposal without any further verification, testing or sampling whatsoever. In the cases where the drugs that are seized after May, 1989 and where the trial and appeal and revision have also been finally disposed of, The DDCs shall accordingly take stock of all such Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances in H 658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R.

A relation to which the trial of the accused persons has finally concluded and the proceedings have attained finality at all levels in the judicial hierarchy. The DDCs shall then take steps to have such stock also destroyed under the direct supervision of the head of the Department concerned. In the cases in which the proceedings are still pending before the Courts at the level of B trial court, appellate court or before the Supreme Court, the heads of the Department concerned shall ensure that appropriate applications are moved by the officers competent to do so under Notification dated 16" January, 2015 before the Drugs Disposal Committees concerned and steps for disposal of such Narcotic c Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances taken without any further loss of time. [Para 19] [693-i<; 694-A-D, F-H; 695-A) 4. The Chief Justices of the High Courts concerned are requested to appoint a Committee. of Judges on the D administrative side to supervise and monitor progress made by the respective States in regard to the compliance with the above directions and wherever necessary, to issue appropriate directions for a speedy action on the administrative and even on the judicial side in public interest wherever considered necessary. [Para 21] (696-B) E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 652 of2012 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2010 of the High Court ofM. P. in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of2008.

Ranjit Kumar, SG, Ajit Kumar Sinha, (A.C.), A. K. Panda, Binu F Tamta, Sushma Manchanda, Pravesh Thakur, Manish Vashishtha, D.S. Mahra, Shreekant N. Terdal for the Appellant. Sharwan Dogra, Adv. Gen., Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. Addi. Adv. Gen., Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Pardeep Kumar (for Corporate Law Group), Hemantika Wahi, Jesal G Wahi, Preetika Dwivedi,Abhinav Mukerji, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Sanjay Sharawat for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. THAKUR, CJI. I. When this appeal came up for hearing before us on 11 'h April, 2012, it was contended by learned counsel for H the appellant-Union of India that Standing Order No. I of 1989 dated UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 659 13"' June, 1989 which prescribes the procedure to be followed for seizure, A sampling, safe keeping and disposal of the seized Drugs, Narcotics and Psychotropic substances is being followed throughout the country. It was also contended that Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, has in terms of a Circular dated 23" February, 2011 impressed upon the Chief Secretaries and the concerned police Bheads of the State Governments to ensure that instructions given and the procedure prescribed in the Standing Order aforementioned was strictly adhered to. These submissions notwithstanding, doubts about the procedure being actually followed persisted. Pilferage of the contraband goods and their return to the market place for circulation being a major hazard, this Court appointed Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate, as c Amicus Curiae, with a view to making a realistic review of the procedure for search, disposal or destruction of the narcotics and the remedial steps that need to be taken to plug the loopholes, if any.

2. On 3" July, 2012 this Court after hearing the Amicus Curiae prima facie came to the conclusion that the procedure prescribed for the D destruction of the contraband seized in different States was not being followed resulting in a very piquant situation in which accumulation of huge quantities of the seized drugs and narcotics has increased manifold the chances of their pilferage for re-circulation in the market. This Court also noted a report published in the timesofindia.indiatimes.com under. the heading "Bathinda's police stores bursting at seams with seized E narcotics" from which it appeared that large quantities of seized drugs had accumulated over the years including opium, poppy husk, charas etc. apart from modem narcotic substances. The report suggested that 39 lakhs sedatives and narcotic tablets, 1.10 lakhs capsules, over 21,000 drug syrups and 1828 sedative injections apart from 8 kgs. of smack and F 84 kgs. of ganja were awaiting disposal in Bathinda Police stores alone. The position was, according to Mr. Sinha, no better in other States especially those situate along the international bprders. It was argued by the Amicus Curiae that without proper data from the authorities concerned, it was not possible to take stock of the magnitude of the Gproblem no matter challenges posed by rampant drug abuse had acquired alarming proportions affecting the youth, some of whom are driven to commission of crimes on account of deleterious effects of drug abuse.

3. It was in the above backdrop that by an order dated 3'' July, 2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.652 of 2012 this Court directed H 660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. A collection of information from the police heads of each one of the States through the Chief Secretaries concerned in regard to seizure, storage, disposal and destruction of the seized contraband and judicial supervision over the same. Specific queries were formulated in the order passed by us with a direction to the Chief Secretaries of the States concerned to serve the same upon the Directors General of Police for a report to be B forwardf:d through the Registrars General of the High Courts of the States concerned who were appointed Nodal Officers for that purpose. Registrars General were also asked to independently secure from the District and Sessions Judges concerned in their respective States, answers to the queries specified under the head "Judicial Supervision". Chiefs of c Central Government Agencies viz. Narcotics Control Bureau, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence and Commissionerates of Customs & Central Excise including the lndian Coast Guard were directed to issue similar queries to the officers concerned and to submit their respective reports detailing the information required in terms of the orders passed by this Court. The queries raised D by this Court were in the following words: "12.J. Seizure

(i) What narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (natural and synthetic) have been seized in the last JO years and in E what quantity? Provide yearwise and districtwise details of the seizure made by the relevant authority. (ii) What are the steps, if any, taken by the seizing authorities to prevent damage, loss and pilferage of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (natural and synthetic) during F seizure/transit? (iii) What are the circulars/notifications/directions/guidelines, if any, issued to competent officers to follow any specific procedure in regard to seizure of contrabands, their storage and destruction? Copies of the same be attached to the report. G 12.2. Storage (i) Is there any specified/notified store for storage of the seized contraband in a State, if so, is the storage space available in each district or ta/uka? (ii) If a store/storage space is not available in each district or H taluka, where is the contraband sent for storage purposes? UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 661 Under what conditions is withdrawal of the contraband A permissible ani whether a court order is obtained for such withdrawal? (iii) What are the steps taken at the time of storage to determine the nature and quantity of the substance being stored and what are the measures taken to prevent substitution and B pilferage from the stores?

(iv) Is there any check stock register maintained at the site of storage and if so, by whom? Is there any periodical check of such register? If so, by whom? Is any record regarding such periodic inspection maintained and in what form? c (v) What is the condition of the storage facilities at present? Is there any shortage of space or any other infrastructure lacking? What steps have been taken or are being taken to remove the deficiencies, if any? (vi) Have any circulars/notifications/directions/guidelines D been issued to competent officers for care and caution to be exercised during storage? Ifso, a copy of the same be produced. 12.3. Disposal/Destruction E (i) What narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (natural and synthetic) have been destroyed in the last JO years and in what quantity? Provide yearwise and districtwise details of the destruction made by the relevant authority. If no destruction has taken place, the reason therefor. F (ii) Who is authorised to apply for permission of the court to destroy the seized contraband? Has there been any failure or dereliction in making such applications? Whether any person having technical knowledge of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (natural and synthetic) is associated with the actual process of destruction of the contraband? G (iii) Was any action taken against the person who should have applied for permission to destroy the drugs or should have destroyed and did not do so?

(iv) What are the steps taken at the time of destruction to determine the nature and quantity of the substance being H 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. A destroyed? (v) What are the steps taken by competent alllhorities to prevent damage, loss, pilferage and tampering/substitution of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (natural and synthetic) during transit from point of storage to point of B destruction? (vi) Is there any specified facility for destruction of contraband in the State? If so, a list of such facilities along with location and details of maintenance, conditions and supervisory bodies be provided. c (vii) If a facility is not available, where is the contraband sent for destruction purposes? Under whose supervision and what is the entire procedure thereof? (viii) Is any record. electronic or othen<•ise prepared at the site of destruction of the contraband and by whom? Is there D any periodical check of such record? What are the ranks/ designation of the supervising officers charged with keeping a check on the same> 12.4. Judicial supervision (i) Is any inspection done by the District and Sessions Judge E of the store where the seized drugs are kept? If drugs are lying in the store, has the Sessions Judge taken steps to have them destroyed?

(ii) JS any report of the inspection conducted, submitted to the Administrative Judge of the High Court or the Registry of F the High Court? If so, has any action on the subject being taken for timely inspection and destruction of the drugs? (iii) Are there any pending applications for destruction of drugs in the district concerned, if so, what is the reason for the delay in the disposal of such application? G (iv) What level officers including the judicial officers are associated with the process of destruction? (v) At what stages are the Magistrates/judicial officers/any other officer of the court associated with seizure/storage/ H destruction of drugs? UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 663 (vi) Are there any rules framed by the Court regarding its A supervisory role in enforcement of the NDPS Act as regards seizure/storage/destruction of drugs? (vii) What is the average time for completion of trial of NDPS matters?" B 4. In compliance with the above directions, reports have been submitted by all the States except the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Dadar & Nagar Haveli, Lakshadweep, Nagaland and Pondicherry. From a perusal of the reports so received the position that emerges in regard to disposal/destruction of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance qua each State· for the last I 0 years may be c summarised as under: DETAILS OF SEIZURE AND DISPOSAL OF DRUGS (STATEWISE) I. ANDHRA PRADESH

D Item Total Quanti!x Tgtal Quantity Difference . Seized (In 10 !!~strayed (in 10 years) vears\ Ganja 2,20,977.191 Kg 39I0.70 Kg 217066.491 kg (98.23%) Opium 22.925 kg 0 22.925 Kg (I 00%) E Charas 6.5 kg 0 6.5 kg (JOO%) Cocaine 851.0% kg 0 851.096 kg (I 00%) _ Others 85.125 kg+ 103 0 F '· Capsules + 81 Injections 26 Amp 2. ASSAM (The Information pertains only to the period of 2010-2012) G Item Total Quanti!l: Total Quantitv Difference Seiz eel (In 10 Destrol'.ecl (in years) 10:1'.ears} Ganja 203.54 Kg 136Kg 67.54 (33.18%) H 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R. A Heroin .614 kg 0 .214 Kg (34.853%) Opium 30gms 0 30 !!!TIS {I 00%) Others 755662 41472 Nos. 714190Nos. (94.5%) B 3. BIHAR Item Total Quanti!l: Total Quantitt Difference Seized (!n 10 Destrol'.ed (in vears) lOvears) Ganja 45Kg 0 45 kg c Heroin 3.74 kg 0 3.74 kg Charas 48.853 kg 0 48.853 kg Poppy 100 kgs 0 100 kgs D Straws Methqu 1676 kgs 0 1676 kgs alone Note:- No destruction of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances have taken place at Patna zonal unit. E 4. CHHATTISGARH Quantit~ Total Quant it~ Di[ference .!W!!. Total Seized (In IO Destroyed (in 10 F years) years) Ganja 1,03.622.140 kg 3281.570 kg 1,00,340 .57 Kg (96.77%) Cannabis 52478 (Nos) 380 (Nos) 52098 (Nos) Plants (92.7%) Brown 3.120 kg 0 3.129 kg ( 100%) G Sugar Opium 1.460 kg 0 1.460 kg ( 100%) Opium 1558 pieces 0 1558 pieces Ponov Plant (100%) Green 3600 kg 0 3600 kg ( 100%) Opium Plant H

UNION OF !NOIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 665 5. CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE A Item Total Quantity Total Quantity Difference Seized (!n 10 Destroyed (in vears) 10 years) Opium 367.007kg 658.525 kg Destroyed more than B seized Morphine 58.393 kg 190 kg+ 88930 58.203 kg Pcs lni ections (99.6%) Heroine 1658.099 kg 739.687 kg 918.412kg (55.3%) c Ganja 484124.056 kg 8,43,008.559 Destroyed kg more than seized Hashish 77350.076 kg 12298.578 kg Destroyed more than seized D Cocaine 640.569 kg 0 640.569 kg (100%) 6. CHANDIGARH Item Total Quantity Total Quantity Difference E Seized (!n 10 Destroyed (in vears\ lOvearsl Contraband By relevant 900.179 Kgs 2305 .444 Kgs authorities (71%) 3205.623 Kgs F Morphine 58.393 kg \ 90kg + 88930 58.203 kg Pcs Iniections (99.6%) Heroine 1658.099 kg 739.687 kg 918.412 kg (55.3%) Ganja 484124.056 kg 8,43,008.559 Destroyed kg more than G seized Hashish 77350.076 kg 12298.578 kg Destroyed more than seized Cocaine 640.569 kg 0 640.569 kg (l 00"/o) H 666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] l S.C.R. A 7. DELHI • Delhi has provided two responses. One response has been provided by the NCB, Delhi and the other by the police heads of each of the district. • The response by NCB, Delhi is as follows:-B Item Total Quantity Total Quantity Difference Seized (In 10 Destroyed (in vears\ 10 vears\ Contraband 8891.8373 680.376 kg 8211.4613 kg(92.34%)

c • The Response by the police heads are as follows:-lilln I2tal Quagtijy Il!tal Quantijy Qiffui:nce ~ized (In IQ De~tr2yi:d (in years) 10 years} By relevant D authorities Contraband 52944.577 kg 32443.456 kg 20500.601 (Hashish, (38.72%) Cocaine, Ganja, Heroin etc.) Contrabands 1020669 0 1020669 E (Chemical (100%) Substances in Tablets, lniections) 8. DAMAN AND DIU F The UT Daman and Diu has informed the Total quantity by way of a detailed chart: lli.!!!. Total Quantity Total Quanti!Y Difference Seized (In 10 Destroyed (in ll.!Wl 10 l'.earsj G By relevant authorities Contraband 25.827 kgs 000 kgs 25.827 Kgs (100%) H UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 667 9. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE A Item Total Quantitv Total Quanti~ Difference Sei:red {!n 10 Destroyed {in years) By relevant 10 years} authorities Contraband 174185.687kg 2859.448 Kg 171326.23 B 9 198.3%) 10. GUJARAT • The Response of the state is divided into two parts. •One has been provided by the office of the Ministry of Home Affairs. • As per the said response the total amount of contraband seized c in 10 years are 28340.047 Kg. No division of the type has been provided. • The total destruction in the last IO years however is only 132.375 Kg • The total amount of Contraband sti II in custody of the atrthorities is 28207.672 Kgs, i.e. 99.53% of the seized amount. D•The response of the NCB Zonal Unit is as follows:

Item Total Quantity Total Ouantitv Difference Seized {!n 10 Destroyed {in vearS\ 10 vearsl Charas 1421.14 kg 15.056 kgs 1406.084 kg E (98.9%) Opium 17.505 kg 0 17.505 kg ( 100%) Brown Sugar 2.03 kg 0 2.03 kg ( 100%) Heroin 3.066 kg 0 (981 gms of 3.066 kg F Heroin was (100%) destroyed in 2000, however all the seizures have been made oost2003) G Others 3766.126 kg+ 525 kgs 3241.126 kgs 299 ltrs. + 1022 (86.05%) + Tablets 229 ltrs ( 100%)+ 1022 Tablets ( 100%) H 668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. A 11. GOA The UT Chandigarh has informed the Total quantity by way.of a detailed chart: Item Total Quantit:i: Total Quantit:i: Difference Seized !}n 10 Destro:i:ed {in :i:ears) By 10 :i:ears} B relevant authorities Contraband 548.746 kg.>. 000 kgs 548.7476 kgs ( 100"/o) 12. HARYANA c Item Total Quantit:i: Total Quantit:i: Difference Seized {In 10 Destro:i:ed {in vears\ 10 vears\ Ganja 2604.077 kg 521.133 kg 2082.944 kg (79%) D Charas 7252513 kg 533.46 kg 6719.053 kg (92.64%) Opium 1086387 kg 1972.860 Destroyed more than seized E Smack 8200.00 kg 4169.919 kg 4030.081 kg (49.14%) Heroine 1.046 kg 1.300 kg Destroyed more than seized F Brown Sugar 2.001 kg 1.003 kg 998 kg ( 49.87°/o) Cocaine 325 kg 0 .325 kg ( 100%\ 13. HIMAO-IALPRADESH 1l1e State ofHimachal Pradesh has infom1ed the Total quantity G biyway of a detai'l ed c11art: Item TQl:al Quantit:i: Total Quantitx Differenci: Seized (In 10 Destro:i:ed {in vears\ 10 vears)

Contraband 17026.714 1856.913 15169.801 (89.09%) H UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJI.] 669 14 JHARKHAND A Item Total Quantity Total Q!!antity Difference Seized (In 10 Destro:i:ed (in vears) lOyears} Ganja 1793.381 kg 0 (area of 1793.381 kg cultivation has (100%) been destroved) B Opium 360.59 kg 0 360.59 kg (100%) Brown Sugar 1.576 kg 0 l.576 kg (100%) Heroine 546 kg 0 546 kg (100%) c 15. KERALA Item Total Quanti!}: Total Quanti!l; Difference Seized {In 10 Destro:i:ed {in years} 10 years) Ganja 7588.543 Kg 2740.926 kg 4847.617kg D (63.88%) Heroine .536 kg 0 .536 kg (100%) Hashish 12.368 kg 0 12.368 (100%) E Char as .063 kg 0 .063 kg (100%) Brown Sugar 8.432 kg 12.058 kg Destroyed more than seized Opium 23.697 kg 0 23.697 kg F (100%) 16. KARNATAKA • The state of Karnataka divided its response in two parts. One is seizure by Police and the Other is seizure by NCB Item Total Quanti!Y Total QuantiJx Difference G Seized {In 10 Destro:i:ed {in vears) 10 vears) Contraband ByNCB 366.838 Kgs OOOkgs 366.838 By relevant Kgs(l00%) authorities 12140.592 15151.041 H 27291.633 Kl!S (55%) 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016) I S.C.R. A 17. MAHARASHTRA Item Total Quanti!Y Total Quanti!Y Difference Seized (In IO Destroyed (in . vearsl 10 vearsl Ganja 1,14.082 kg 8750 kg 1,14,074 kg (92.33%) B Heroin 654 kg 228 kg 426 kg (65.13%) Charas 2364.\XJ kg 471.735 1893.165 (80.05%) Opium 613.044 kg 47.135 kg 565.909 kg (92.31%)

c Cocaine 11.049 kg 0 kg 11.049 kg (100%) 18 MANIPUR Item Total Quantity Total Quanti!l' Difference Seized (In 10 Destro:yed (in years) 10 :years} D Heroin 37.534 kg. 12.498 kg 25.036 kg (66.072%) Ganja 45343.25kg 41963.389 kg 3379.861 kg (Kindly reter (7.45%) to the Notel E Opium 233.985 kg 0 233.985 kg (100%) Hashish 3.05 kg 0 3.05 kg(I00%) Note: The Total amount of Ganja seized post 2005 was 25913.225 kgs and the same is still lying with the authorities since the last pretrial disposal in 2005. F 19. MADHYA PRADESH • Madhya Pradesh has divided its response in two pat1s. One is seizure by Police and the other is seizure by NCB. Item Tutal Quanti!Y Total Quantity Difference Seized {!n IO Destroi;~ (in lO mKi:s G vears) In Kus vears) In Kus Contraband By Police- By Police By Police-004376.528 61384.805 742991.723 Kgs (92%) Destroyed BYNCB more than H 348 kg seized UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 671 A 20. Ministr of Home Affairs NCB Item Total Quantity Total Quan tit)'. Difference Seized {In 10 Destroyed {in 10 )'.ears) !'.ears) B Contraband By relevant authorities 44 76.482 kgs 5344.12 Kgs. 867.638 (16%) c21. ORISSA • Orissa has divided its response in two parts. One is se.izure by Pol ice and the Other is seizure by Excise Officials. Item Total Quan tit)'. Total Quan tit)'. Difference Seized {In 10 Destro:i:ed {in 10 years) years) D Contraband By Police 0.000 By Police-88241.741 Kgs 88241.741 Kgs Bv Excise 0.000 (100%)

34520.854 Kgs By Excise E (100%) 34520.854 Kgs (100%) 22. PUNJAB Item Tutal Quantity Total Quan tit)'. Difference F Seized {In 10 Destroved (in lO i:ears) years) Poppy Husk 8,93,948.452 kg 4,00,678.069 kg 4,93,270.3 83 kg (55.°17%) G Onium 4936.031 ke 965.818 k!! 3970.213 kg . _(80.43%) - - - ---·~ -- --- -·----Smack 20045.293 kg 104.631 kg 19940.662 (99.47%) H 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. A 23. RAJASIHAN 'Item Tut al Quantity Total Quanti!:£ Difference Seized {!n 10 Destroyed (in years) IO years) B Brown Sugar 146.996 kg 23.381 kg 123.615 kg (84.094%) Heroine 173.216 kg 3.25 kg 169.966 kg (98.12%\ Smack 275.246 kg 82.423 kg 192.823 kg c (70.05%) Opium 6687.081 kg 2006.745 kg 4680.335 kg (69.99%) Charas 935.602 kg 1192.309 Destroyed more than seized D Ganja 176289.677 kg 2578.712 kg 174250.965 kg (98.84%) Poppy Straw 99684.05 kgs 1.34,652.55 kg Destroyed more than seized. 24. SIKKIM E Item Total Quanti!v Total Quanti!Y Difference Seized (!n IO Destroyed (in years) Bv IO years) relevant authorities F N-IO Capsure 9156 ** 9156 ( 100%) 277367 Spasmo 277367 •• Proxyvon (100%) Cansule Corex/ 3033 •• 3033 G Phensidylerec (100%) odex Otllers •• 203.92gms . **The State Governn1ent of Sikkim has replied that the destruction rt done as per the orders of the Trial Court on the conclusion of Trial. However, no details related to disposal has been provided. H UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 673 A25. TAMILNADU

Difference Item Total Quan tine Total Quantit:y Seized (!n 10 Destro:yed {in vears) 10 vears) Ganja(Dry 656778 kg 19366.98 kg 637411.02 kg B +Green) (97.051%) Charas 13 kg I kg 12 kg (92.30%) Heroin 66.42 kg 66.425 kg 0 Cocaine I kg 15.4 kg Destroyed more than c seized Brown 0.015 kg 0 0.015 kg Smmr ( 100%) Opium 30.4 kg l.738kg 29.262 kg (96.25%) Hash Oil JO kg I kg 9 kg(90%) D Tidigesic I 3627 vials 4095 vials 9532 vials in.i. (69.94%) Norphine I 12 amps 0 112amps ( 100%) Bosikka 9 0 9(100%) E Diazepam 9.085 kg+ 2706 4.5 I (kg or vial vials not sure) Poppy 246.75 kg 125.05 kg 12l.7kg Cap/Straws (49.32%) Avil 350 tabs+ 55 vials 0 350 tabs+ 55 vials F 26. TRIPURA Item Total Quantitt Total Quantit:y Difference Seized (!n 10 Destro:yed {in vears) 10 vears) G Ganja 9178.8 2642.5 kg 6536.3 kg (71.21%) Ganja Dust 436 kg 87 kgs 349 kgs (80.04%) ~ H 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. A 27. UITAR PRADESH • There is huge discrepancy between the Quantity seized and the Quantity destroyed. .!1m!. Total Quanti!l; Tgtal Quanlit~ J..!if(erenc£ Seized {In lO Destroyed {in vearsl 10 vears) B Opium 1278.016 kg 198.025 kg 1079.99 kg (84.5%) Smack 455.543 kg 244.443 kg 211.lkg (46.3%) Heroin 503.664kg 13.759 kg 489.905 kg c Ganja 92525.859 11,820.191 kg (97.2%)80705.668 kg (87.22%\ Charas 9099.432 kg 2234.481 kg 6864.951 kg (75.44%) Intoxicating 3658.065 kg 1035.275 kg 2622.79 Kg Powder (Cocaine) (71.69%)

D Brown Sugar 51.455 kg I.I kg 51.355 kg (99.8%\ Posta Drug 16224.591 kg 5081.988 kg 11,142.603 kg (68.67%) 28. UITARAKHAND lli!!! Total Quantitr Total Quantitr Difference E Seized (In IO Des!ro~ed (in vearsl 10 vearsl Charas 1252.091 kg 330.459 kg 921.632 kg (73.60%) Doda 6783.765 kg 330.459 kg 6453.306 (95.12%) F Opium 28.899kg 1.859 kg 27.04kg (93.567%) Heroine 154.454 kg 0 154.454 kg (100%) Intoxicating 224!3 Nos 4668 Nos. 17745 Nos Tablets (79.17%) Ganja ll21.740kg 508.300 kg 613.44 kg G (54.686%) Smack 8.761kg+1022 0.432 kg+ 530 8.329 kg packets Packets (95.06%) + 492 Pkts 148.140%l Injection 1924 Nos 5 Nos. 1919 Nos (99.74%) H Brown Sugar .3 89 kg 0 .389 kg (100%) UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 675 A29 WEST BENGAL Item Total Quantit:Y Total Quantitv Difference Seized {In 10 DestrOl'ed {in I 0 l'ti!r~l D::r rs;levant lill.W authn riths Contraband 88520.J JI 7 kg 0 88520.JJ 17 k[!(J00o/o1 BNote:- West Be11gal ltas stated tltal it does not have atty i111111ediate records available of destruction. 5. /11 regard to the storage of1VDPS ~;ubstances, !he State Governments and the Central Agencies ha1'e furnished information ll'l11cli the learned Amicus Curiae has tabulated as under: Annexure D c Delhi Govt. G uiara t Govt. Guwahati Govt. Yes. specified store for No specific NBC Gu wahati Zonal Unit storage of the seized store. is running from a rented contraband in Delhi house and one secured Zonal Unit. room is earmarked as

storal!e nlace. Imphal Go\•t. M izoram G O\'t, Tripura Govt. D Stored in god own No s~ec ific No specified store. of NCB -1 after store sealing. l\1eghalaya Go\'t. Uttar Pradesh J\•I aha rash tra Govt. Govt., Goa and Daman Diu Excise Malkhana is UP has no No specific store in generally used to store specific place Maharashtra for storage. E contrabands. for storage of the narcotic In Goa: Mala khan a at All district Excise office drugs. Police Station. have their own M alkhana rooms. Daman & Diu and Dadar & Nagar Haveli: Kept in M alkhn na Police Station. Then sent to storage of F competent Court after chargeshe et is filed. Himachal Cbhattisgarh A ndhra Pradesh Pradesh Govt. Govt. Govt. No sp·ecified area. No separate No specified area. storage. G Rajasthan Govt. Sikkim GO\'t. llttarakhand Govt. No specific store. No storage. No specific store. Jbarkhand Govt. Kerala Govt. Karnataka Govt. No specific store. No specific No notified store. storae:e. H 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. A Madhya Pradesh Orissa Govt. Bihar Govt Govt Yes, NCB Zonal Unit No specific Patna Zonal Unit of NCB Indore ahs ll'e II-secured store. has specified room specific maalkhana Withdrawal only under (Submissions by NCB order of the Court. B Indore Zonal unit) No specific Store for storage after seizure by Police Station. (Submissions by Police Heads) c Punjab Govt. Haryana Govt Chandigarh Govt.

No specified Malkhana in all A Room called Malkhana store. police stations for is specifically designated storage of to keep the seized contraband contrabands. Narcotics Drugs D and Psychotropic Substances. Tamil Nadu Customs and Directorate of Revenue Central Excise Intelligence E No Spedfic storage No specific storage No specific store of its space. is available own. NCB, Jodhpur NCB, Chandigarh West Bengal Zone Zone F Yes, But no sub¥zone A separate room The seized goods are available. has been specified stored in Police Station for storage of Malkhana under the charge seized contraband. of a designated Police Officer and supeivision of officer in charge of Police G Station. 6. Similarly, in answer to the query as to the steps taken at the time of storage to detennine the nature and the quantity of the substance being stored and measures to prevent substitution ancVor pilferage from the stores, the State Governments have sent their replies which too have H been summarised by the Amicus Curiae in the following words: UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJI.] 677 A ANNEXURE-F iii. What are the steps taken at the time of storage to determine the nature and quantity of the substance being store and measures to prevent substitution and pilferage from stores? Delhi Gujarat Guwahati Imphal l\'lizoram Tripura B Govt. Govt. Govt. Go,·t. Govt. Govt.

Proper Writer head Complete Complete Utmost Malkhana entry in of Police process of process of care in officer 1nalkha station classificati classificati \Veighing in charge na maintains on and on and and carefully register 1nuddatnal weighing weighing n1easurem keeps the by ents of drugs of drugs contraban register and officer-in- ds with in the c along with -along which has malkha na complete measures measures charge. 1nalkhana incharg details. All of of @page after e and subsequent prevention prevention IOI of maintaini proper! withdrawal of of sub1n ission ng y and pilferage pilferage s by register. locked redisposition mentioned 1nentioned Mizora1n (q;Pg.No. and are also at at Govt. 3 of D guarded reflected in @ @ Pg. No. submissio · @Pg 10 the Pg.No.52 74 of n by of Delhi tnuddamal of Imphal Tripura Gort. register Guwahati Govt. Govt. sub1niss @Pg.2 of Govt submission ion Gujarat submission Govt. submission E ~ghalaya l! tta r 1\1aharashtr l-liin11ch·a1 Cbhnttisg Andhra Govt. Pradesh a Govt., Pradesh a rh Go,·t. Pradesh Govt. Goa and Govt. G·ovt. Daman Diu.

General After Contraband NDPS is Details of During duty of Seizure is packed seized by all steps to the detecting the and kept investigati determine storage F officer to conccrne safe with ng ofl'icer. the nature the weighi d drug is ,Mudden1al After and details seal the weighed Clerk in san1ples quantity are contra ban Subseque separate are taken, of the entered d \Vith 11tly a cupboard. the sa nle substance in signatures sa1nple is... @ Pg.6. is seized being __ storage of civilian taken out by . 1.0. store and roo1n G \Yitnesses of the Goa: affixing register. with bag and Contraband his o,vn St6re proper both arc seal and entry in \Veighed latei separate! y. H 678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) I S.C.R. A register - Both the packed and resealed by measures room and Jock sample sealed at SHO to prevent is duly it. and main the spot of before substitutio sealed @pg.7 stock are seizure. consigning n and and Annex- ,wrapped Entry m it to the pilferage armed A-2 of in a piece Mudamma, safe from guards B Meghala of cloth register to custody in stores /station ya Govt. and are show chain police elaborated watch Submissi sealed. of malkhana @ Pg.No. are I I ~~---- The movementsand its ofPolice the 3submissioof posted. Acc. To sample is custody. @ Station ns by @ Report of sent for pg. 8. Chhattisga pg.no. c Comm. forensic @ Pg.No.3 rh Govt. 2 of Of testing Daman & of HP A.P. Customs and the Diu and Govt. Govt

@Pg.67: main Dadar & submission. submis Stored in packed is Na gar sion Central sealed and Haveli: D Godown kept in the there are in safes malkhana. very and re1note vaults @ Pg.6 of chances of with subn1issio substitution double ns by U.P. I pilferage E locking Govt. as the system , stored under goods are command subject to of a periodical Gazetted inspection F Officer.. Page 9 of the Response Rajasthan Sikkim Utta ra Jharkhand Kera la Karnataka Govt. Govt. khand Govt. Govt. Govt Govt. G ·No specific NDPS NDPS Material During answer. is sa1nple is objects is recovery a Ho\Vever packed sent to sealed and pinch of the packing and tbrensic packed substance is sealed under H UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 679 A resources stamp of laboratory. properly. tested with the for storage IO ' and For help of field are used nature and preventing Page 9 of drug test kit according· quantity substitution, the for an to quantity recorded details Response indicative test. and nature in entered into After positive B of the presence station dial)' indicative contraband of of the result, the individual concerned· officer makes @ Pg.No. witnesses. police detailed 2 of Page II of station. inventory. The submission the Complete seized goods cby Response. safety are stored in Rajasthan measures the Govt. mentioned departmental · in Annex-3 godown or the ·with the judicial govt. godown and submission. only a D representative Page 5 of sampk is sent

-the to the Response laboratol)' for chemical analysis. E @ pg. IO of submission by Karnataka · Govt. F Madhya 0 rissa ·Bihar- Punjab Haryan (4randi Pradesh . Govt. Govt. Govt. a Govt. garb Govt.· . Govt . By NCB Seized Seized Police Weekly Seized Indore drugs drugs officials and contraba Zonal are are deployed fortnight nd is Office. sealed sealed at ·all ly safely G Seized in such and , NDPS reports kept in contraband a produce Maalkha obtained Malkha mannef · d before na. from all na under l6ck . . H 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R. A wrapped in as tc the Court ~tores. concerned No more trans parent minimize and then ~ase regarding details polythene and tl1e stored in property seized/ 1nentioned then in white chances o Maalkha .. egister storage of cloth before pilferage. na after No. 19is NDPS. B sealing and entry in Jnaintained Stock signing it. After registers. Register is Quality and producing Procedure maintaine an1ount of tl1e seize< Pg. No. 3 ~s per and d by field seized drug is goods of Punjab units and also with sub1nissi Police periodical c mentioned in permissim on by •ules 1934. checking the packet. of cour Bihar nspection is done. @ Pg. 5 of tl1e drug: Govt. oy gazette submissions are pfficers. @pg. 121 by M.P. Govt deposited [email protected]. of By police u1 16andl7 submissio heads of maalkhana pf n of D districts: in seale< ~ubmissio Haryana A seizun condition 1 by Govt. memo is agai1 with Punjab prepared u/s 55 proper Povt.

ofNDPS Act a entry ar> the time 0 wider th• E storage in th< custody o police statior Maa!khan malkhana and a Officer. sealed b~ Station HouS< Page 2 anc Officer. 3 of th< Necessary Response. F entries ar< made in tlu Rojnamcha and seizec prope1ty register G 1naintained in the polic' station. At page 4 o the Response. 1-1 UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 681 A Tamil Directorate of NCB NCR Zonal Customs N adu Revenue Zonal Office, and Intelligence Officer, Chandigarh Central Jodhnur Excise No such The sealed As per The seized The seized instance contained Govem1ne goods are contraband has containing the nt of India stored lot is deposited B arisen. seized goods is Notificati wise and in the handed over to on, stored under godown/ Custodian circular proper lock malkhana under proper 1/89 page and key on the basis documentation 3 of the under the of the f The Response. supervision particulars c inventory, of ITBP ·mentioned seizure · memo Guard. No in the as well as the one other seizure paper seals on than the memo/ the sealed store in ·panchnama container are charge is Proper D duly signed by authorized and secured the pan ch to enter the packing witnesses, store. and sealing accused and of the seizing officer. Page 6 of contraband The custodian the ensures its are responsible Response. safety. E for appropriate Page 11 of action to the prevent Response. substitution and pilferage. West Bengal F

The seized goods are packed labeled and sealed by the Officer and are handed over to the officer in charge with copy of seizure list. Details are also incotporated in the Malkhana G Register having counter signed of dealing officer. 7. The reports submitted by the State Governments and the Central Agencies further claim that stock registers maintained at the storage sites are periodically checked by the staff mentioned in the reports. H 682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.

A Another question that was asked from the StatJ Governments and the Central Agency relates to the condition of the storage facilities, shortage of storage facilities, if any, and whether any steps have been taken or are being taken to remove the deficiencies. Answers to those queries suggest that no proper storage facilities are available in most of the States. For instance, in Gujarat no special storage facility is available for B keeping the contraband, which is, therefore, stored in general muddamal room. In Assam the NBC Guwahati Zonal Unit is said to be running from a rented house and one secured room is earmarked for storage with triple locking system under the supervision of the Superintendent. In Imphal, the store room is overflowing with contraband. Since there is c shortage of space, pre-trial disposal process has been initiated to decrease congestion in godowns. Although Mizoram Government claims that there is no lack of storage facility, no information as to any specific storage facility being earmarked for the purpose has been provided. In Tripura the enforcement branch is said to be maintaining the malkhana used for. storage of contraband~. In Himachal Pradesh there is no storage facility D except an old building used for the purpose, while in Chhattisgarh the storage facility is satisfactory but not sufficient for bulk storage. Similarly, Rajasthan has scarcity of storage facility. Jharkhand has no.separate storage facility at all whereas Kerala has satisfactory storage facilities only in some of the dis\ric.ts. In Orissa and Bihar the storage facilities E are totally insufficient and unsatisfactory. States of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Goa, Daman Diu and Dadar & Nagar Haveli and Andhra Pradesh claim to have no problems with storage facility while Tamil . Nadu does not have any separate storage.

8. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has not provided any inforination while NCB Zonal Office, Jodhpur has no shortage of space. F NCB Zonal Office, Chandigarh has reported insufficiency of space and has started the process for construction of a specified storage facility. Customs and Central Excise Authority has reported that their godown is full and no more space is available. · 9. In answer to the question as to who is authorised to app!y to G the Court to destroy the seized contraband and whether there has been any failure or dereliction in making such applications and whether any person having technical knowledge of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance (natural and synthetic) is associated with the process of destruction of the contraband: the reply submitted by the State H Governments suggest that different persons in different States have been UNION OF !NOIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 683 authorised to make such applications to the Courts concerned except in A Tripura where no particular person is authodsed. In some cases Officer-in- charge of the Police Station has been authorised while in others the

1.0. is also empowered to apply for permission to destroy the contraband. In answer to the question whether any action has been taken against anyone who should have applied for permission to destroy the narcotics B but had not done so, State Governments have all answered in the negative implying thereby that either no dereliction of duty has occurred on the part of any officer competent to apply for destruction or no action has been taken for any such dereliction. · I 0. Similarly, regarding the steps taken at the time of destruction c to determine the nature and quantity of the substance being destroyed, the reports submitted by the State Governments give varying answers. There is no uniformity in the procedure adopted by those associated or in charge of the process of destruction. The reports suggest as if adequate steps are taken to prevent damage, loss, pilferage and tampering/ substitution of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances from the D point of search to the point of destruction but there is no uniformity or standard procedure prescribed or followed in that regard. Having said that we must mention that we are in these proceedings concerned with the following three issues only for the present: (i) Seizure and sampling of the Narcotic drugs and E Psychotropic substances (ii) their storage and (iii) their destruction Seizure and sampling: F

11. Section 52-A(l) of the NDPS Act, 1985 empowers the Central Government to prescribe by a notification the procedure to be followed for seizure, storage and disposal of drugs and psychotropic substances. The Central Government have in exercise of that power issued Standing Order.No. 1/89 which prescribes the procedure to be G followed while conducting seizure of the contraband. Two subsequent standing orders one dated 10.05.2007 and the other.dated 16.01.2015 deal with disposal and destruction of seized contraband and do not alter · or add to the earlier standing order that prescribes the procedure for conducting seizures. Para 2.2 of the Standing Order 1/89 states that samples must be taken from the seized contrabands on the spot at the H 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R. A time of recovery itself. It reads:

"2.2. All the packages/containers shall be serially numbered and kept in lots for sampling. Samples from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search B witnesses (Panchas) and the person from whose possession the drug is recovered, and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchnama drawn on the spot. " Most of the States, however, claim that no samples are drawn at the time of seizure. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is by far the only agency which claims that samples are drawn at the time of seizure, c while Narcotics Control Bureau asserts that it does not do so. There is thus no uniform practice or procedure being followed by the States or the Central agencies in the matter of drawing of samples. This is, therefore, an area that needs to be suitably addressed in the light of the statutory provisions which ought to be strictly observed given the D seriousness of the offences under the Act and the punishment prescribed by law in case the same are proved. We propose to deal with the issue no matter briefly in an attempt to remove the confusion that prevails regarding the true position as regards drawing of samples. 12. Section 52A as amended by Act 16 of 2014, deals with E disposal of seized drugs and psychotropic substa11ces. It reads: "Section 52A : Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

(I) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic F substances, their vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space or any other relevant considerations, by notification published in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or class of narcotic drugs or class of psychotropic G substances which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. (2) Where any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance has H been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 685 nearest police station or to the officer empowered under A section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (I) shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the narcotic B drugs or psychotropic substances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (I) may consider relevant to the identity of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of- c

(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs of such drugs or substances and certifying such photographs D as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the- presence· of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (3) When an application is made under sub-section (2), the E Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of {narcotic F drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] and any list of samples drmvn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.]" 13. It is manifest from Section 52A (2)(c) (supra) that upon seizure Gof the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true and (c) to H 686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R.

A draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. Sub-section

(3) of Section 52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty B bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the c supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A( 4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and D (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure. Be that as it may, a conflict between the statutory provision governing taking E of samples and the standing order issued by the Central Government is evident when the two are placed in juxtaposition. There is no gainsaid that such a conflict shall have to be resolved in favour of the statute on first principles of interpretation but the continuance of the statutory notification in its present form is bound to create confusion in the minds of the authorities concerned instead of helping them in the discharge of F their duties. The Central Government would, therefore, do well, to re-examine the matter and take suitable steps in the above direction.

14. Mr. Sinha, learned Amicus, argues that if an amendment of the Act stipulating that the samples be taken at the time of seizure is not possible, the least that ought to be done is to make it obligatory for the G officer conducting the seizure to apply to the Magistrate for drawing of samples. and certification etc.· without any loss of time. The officer conducting the seizure is also obliged to report the act of seizure and the making of the application to the superior officer in.writing so thatthere is a certain amount of accountability in the ·entire exercise, which as at H present gets neglected for a variety of reasons. There is in our opinion UNION OF INDIA v.. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJI.) 687 no manner of doubt that the seizure.of the contraband must be followed A by an application for drawing of samples and certification as contemplated under the Act. There is equally no doubt that the proc.ess of making any such application and resultant sampling and certification cannot be left to the whims of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general and Section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of Bmaking of an application or the drawing of samples and certification. While we see no room for prescribing or reading a time frame into the provision, we are of the view that an application for sampling and certification ought to be made without undue delay and the Magistrate on receipt of any such applicaiion will be expected to attend to the application and do the needful, within a reasonable period and without c any undue delay or procrastination as is mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 52A (supra). We hope and trust that the High Courts will keep a close watch on the performance of the Magistrates in this regard and through the Magistrates on the agencies that are dealing with the menace of drugs which has taken alarming dimensions in this country partly Dbecause of the ineffective and lackadaisical enforcement of the laws and procedures and cavalier manner in which the agencies and at times Magistracy in this country addresses a problem of such serious dimensions. • --~

STORAGE: E 15. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 does not make any special provision regulating storage of the contraband substances. All that Section 55 of the Act envisages is that the officer in charge of a Police Station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody · the seized article pending orders of the Magistrate concerned.·There is Fno provision nor was any such provision pointed out to us by learned counsel forthe parties prescribing the nature of the storage facilitfto be used for storage of the contraband substances. Even so the importance of adequate storage facilities for safe deposit and storage of the contraband material has been recognised by the Government inasmuch as Standing Order No.1/89 has made specific provisions in regard to the G same. Section Ill of the said Order tleals with "Receipt of Drugs in Godowns and Procedure" which inter alia provides that all drugs shall invariably be stored in "safes and vaults" provided with double locking system and that the agencies of the Central and the State Governments· may specifically designate their godowns for storage purposes and such H 688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R.

A godowns should be selected keeping in view their security angle, juxtaposition to courts etc. We may usefully extract paras 3 .2 to 3.9 comprising Section Ill supra at this stage for ready reference: "'3.2. All drugs invariably be stored in safes and vaults provided with double-locking system. Agencies of the Central B and State Governments, may specifically, designate their godowns for storage purposes. The godowns should be selected keeping in view their security angle, juxtaposition to courts etc. 3.3 Such godowns, as a matter of rule, shall be placed under the over-al/ supenision and charge of a Gazetted Officer of c the respective enforcemellf agency, who shall exercise utmost care, circumspection and personal supervision as far as possible. Each seizing officer shall deposit the drugs fully packed and sealed in the godown within 48 hours of such seii'ure, with a forwarding memo indicating NDPS Crime No. D as per Crime and Prosecution (C & P Register) under the new law, name of the accused, reference of test memo, description of the drugs, total no. of packages/containers ef£. 3.4 The seizing officer, after obtaining an acknowledgement E for such deposit in the format (Annexure-I). shall hand acknowledged over such to the Investigation Officer of the case along with the case dossiers for further proceedings.

3. 5 The officer-in-charge of the godown, before accepting the deposit of drugs, shall ensure that the same are properly F packed and sealed. He shall also arrange the packages! containers (case-wise and lot-wise) for quick retrieval etc. 3. 6 The godown-in-charge is required to maillfain a register wherein entries of receipt should be made as per format at Annexure-Il G 3. 7 It shall be incumbent upon the Inspecting Officers of the various Departments mentioned at Annexure II to make frequent visits to the godowns for ensuring adequate security and safety and for taking measures for timely disposal of drugs. The Inspecting Officers should record their remarks! H observations against Col. I 5 of the Format at Annexure-ll. UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 689 3.8 The Heads·of the respective enforcement agencies (both A Central and State Governments) may prescribe such periodical reports and returns, as they may deem fit, to monitor the safe receipt, deposit, storage. accounting and disposal of seized drugs.

3.9 Since the early disposal of drugs assumes utmost B consideration and importance, the enforcement agencies may obiain orders for pre-trial disposal of drugs and other articles (including conveyance, if any) by having recourse to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the Act. " It is evident from a plain reading of para 3.2 (supra) that storage of all c drugs in safes and vaults has been made mandatory and that agencies of the Central and the State Governments have been permitted to designate their godowns for storage purposes. It is also clear that keeping in view the importance of protecting the seized drugs against theft, substitution or pilferage the Central Government has prescribed that such godowns Dshall be placed under the overall supervision and charge of a gazetted officer of the respective enforcement agencies who shall exercise utmost care, circumspection and personal supervision over the storage facilities. The provision contained in paras 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 also are aimed at ensuring that the godown or storage facility is satisfactory and those in-charge of the same are made accountable for its upkeep and effective E management. Subsequent Notification including Notification dated 16"' •January, 2015 have in no way diluted the above requirement. The result is that there is a statutory framework which governs the storage of drugs and matters relating and incidental thereto. The question is whether the said statutory mechanism has been effectively implemented by the FCentral Government agencies and by the State Governments. Our answer regretfully is in the negative. It is evident from the responses received from the State and the Central Government agencies that no notified storage facility-godown has been established for storage of the seized drugs. Even the Narcotics Control Bureau has admitted to using mallkhana of the Courts for storage of the seized drugs in certain cases G and in certain circumstances. The Customs and Central Excise Department and DRI have also stated that they have no designated storage facility for storage of contraband. The position in the States is no different. Due to non-availability of any designated godown-facility with adequate vaults and double lock system, the seized contraband is stored in police maalkhana which is a common storage facility for all H 690 SUPREME COlJf REPORTS [2016] l S.C.R.

A kinds of goods and weapons seized in connection with all kinds of offences including those specified by the !PC. This is a total.ly unhappy and unacceptable situati_on to say the least. It is indeed unfortunate that even after a lapse of26 years since Standing Order No. 1189 was issued, the Central Government or its agencies and the State Governments have paid little or no attention to the need for providing adequate storage B facilities Of-the kind stipulated in Standing Order No. 1189 with the necessary supervisory and other controls prescribed in :'\ection Ill of the said order. The result is that while Standing Order No. 1189 very early in point oftirile recognized the need for providing adequate and effective storage facilities by the States and the Central Government agencies,"·--c the failure on the part of the Central Government and the State Governments to provide for such storage has defeated, if not completely negated the very purpose underlying the said notification and the provisions made therein. There is as on date hardly any credible protection againsttheft, replacement, pilferage and destruction of the seized drugs on account of the wholly unsatisfactory and unscientific method of storage D of drugs and psychotropic substances whiclrat times hit the headlines in newspapers on account of what is often described by the agencies as "big catch" worth crores of rupees in the international market. Wh,at has defied our understanding is the neglect on the part of the Central Government and its agencies and the State Governments in realizing the E importance of the storJtge facilities and in providing for the same to prevent hazardous and at times lethal substances with great potential to do harm to those wh'o use the same from being replaced, pilfered, stolen or siphoned out on account of very poor supervision, control or invigilation over such storage facilities. The learned -amicus has in that view very right!)' argued that there is a complete failure on the part of the Central F Government aod its agencies as also the State Governments in taking adequate steps for providing proper storage facilities with proper system of supervision and control over the drugs tharare stored in the same. It was contended by Mr. Sinha, and in our Opi.(lion rightly· so, that the cumulative effect of the reports submitted by the States and the Central G agencies is that only 16% of the contrabands seized between 2002 to 2012 have been actually disposed of. What happened td the remaining 84% of such seizures is anybody's guess and ifit is still lying in the police maalkhana; why has nobody ever bothered to apply for their disposal _ according to the procedure established by law is hard to fathom. TJie fact that the States and the Central Government agencies have accepted H

UNION OF iNDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 691 that no specific register is maintained by the State Police and that general A maalkhana register alone is being maintained for the seized drugs shows the neglect of all concerned towards this important aspect and the cavalier manner in which the issue regarding storage of ceased drugs is approached by them. Absence of periodical inspection of the storage facility and the absence of any record suggesting that any inspection has Bbeen carried out by any of the officers shows a complett>failure bordering criminal negligence by officers who are supposed to be taking action in this regard but have failed to do so.

16. The menace of drugs in this country, as observed earlier has alanning dimensions and proportions. Studies based on conferences and cseminars have very often shown tliat the menace is deep rooted not only because drug lords have the money power and transnational links but also because the enforcement agencies like the Police and at times politicians in power help them in carrying on what is known to be a money spinning and flourishing trade. We only hope that the failure of the Central Government agencies and the State Governments in providing D what is the .bare minimum in terms of infrastructure required to artest the growing menace and prevent pilferage and re-circulation of drugs back into the market is not oh account of any unholy connect between the drug traffickers and the enforcement agencies. We woula comfort ourselves by presuming them to be relatable only to apathy and E indifference and hopethl!tthe system does not get corrupted by continued neglect lest all hopes are lost in the fight.against drug menace which are eating into the vitals of our society. It is in that spirit that we deem it necessary to issue appropriate· directions to the Central Government agencies and to the States to set up adequate storage facilities with effective supervisory and regulatory controls as prescribed in Notification F No. 1/89. Disposal of Drugs:

17. Section 52A as amended provides for disposal of the seized .. contraband in the manner stipulated by the Government under Clause I of that Section: Notification dated 16"' January, 2015 has, in supersession G of the earlier notification dated JOlhMay, 2007 not only stipulates that all drugs and psychotropic substances have. to be disposed off but also identifies the officers who shall initiate action fur disposal and the procedure to be followed for such disposal. Para 4 of the Notification inter alia, provides that officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall H 692 SUPREME C01",f REPORTS [2016) I S.C.R. A within 30 days from the date of receipt of chemical analysis report of drugs, psychotropic substances or controlled substances apply to any Magistrate under Section 52A(2) in terms of Annexure 2 to the said Notification.

18. Sub-para (2) of Para (4) provides that after the Magistrate · B allows the application under sub-section (3) of Section 52A, the officer mentioned in sub para (I) of Para (4) shall preserve the certified inventory, photographs and samples drawn in the presence of the Magistrate as primary evidence for the case and submit details of seized items to the Chairman of the Drugs Disposal committee for a decision by the c Committee on the question of disposal. The officer shall also send a copy of the details along with the items seized to the officer in-charge of the godown. Para (5) of the notification provides for constitution of the Drugs Disposal Committee while para (6) specifies the functions which the Committee shall perform. In para (7) the notification provides for procedure to be followed with regard to disposal of the seized items, D while para (8) stipulates the quantity or the value upto which the Drugs Disposal Committee can order disposal of the seized items. In terms of proviso to para (8) ifthe consignments are larger in quantity or of higher value than those indicated in the table, the Drugs Disposal Committee is required to send its recommendations to the head of the department who shall then order their disposal by a high level Drugs Disposal E Committee specially constituted for that purpose. Para (9) prescribes the mode of disposal of the drugs, while para (10) requires the Committee to intimate to the head of the Department the programme of destruction and vestthe head of the Department with the power to conduct a surprise check or depute an officer to conduct such checks on destruction operation. Para (11) deals with certificate of destruction while paras F

(12) and (13) deal with details of sale to be entered into the godown register and communication to be sent to Narcotic Control Bureau.

19. There are two other aspects that need to be noted at this stage. The first is that notification dated I 6" January, 2015 does not in terms supersede Standing Order No. I /89 insofar as the said Standing G Order also prescribes the procedure to be followed for disposal ofNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances. Specific overriding of the earlier Standing Order would have avoided a certain amount of confusion which is evident on account of simultaneous presence of Standing Order No. 1189 and notification dated 16" January, H 2015. For instance in para (I) of Standing Order No. 1189 only certain UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJI.] 693 narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances enumerated therein could A be disposed of while notification dated l 6'h January, 2015 provides for disposal ofall Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances. Again in terms of Standing Order No. I /89 the procedure for making of application was marginally different from the one stipulated in Notification dated 16"' January, 2015 not only insofar as Bthe procedure related to the officers who could make the application is concerned but also in relation to the procedure that the DOC would follow while directing disposal. In both the notifications are prescribed the limits upto which the disposal could be directed. In case of excess quantity the disposal under the Standing Order No. 1/89 had to be done in the presence of the head of the Department whereas according to c notification of2015 in the event of excess quantity or value the disposal has to be by a high !eve I Drug Disposal Committee to be constituted by the head of the Department. Again while Standing Order No. 1/89 specifically required the approval of the Court for disposal, notification dated 16'" January, 2015 does not stipulate such approval as a specific Dcondition. Be that as it may, to the extent the subsequent notification prescribes a different procedure, we treat the earlier notification/Standing Order No. 1/89 to have been superseded. In order to avoid any confusion arising out of the continued presence of two notifications on the same subject we make it clear that disposal ofNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances shall be carried out in the E following manner till such time the Government prescribes a different procedure for the same:

(1) Cases where the trial is concluded and proceedings in appeal/revision have all concluded finally: F In cases that stood finally concluded at the trial, appeal, revision and further appeals, if any, before 29'" May, 1989 the continued storage of drugs and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is of no consequence not only because of the considerable lapse oftime since the conclusion of the proce~dings but also because the process of certification and disposal after verification G and testing may be an idle formality. We say so because ev.~n if upon verification and further testing of the seized contraband in such already concluded cases it is found that the same is either replaced,· stolen or pilferaged, it will be difficult if not impossible to fix the responsibility for such theft, replacement or pilferage at this distant point in time. That H apart, the storage facility available with the States, in whatever 694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R.

A satisfactory or unsatisfactory conditions the same exist, are reported to be over-flowing with seized contraband goods. It would, therefore, be just and proper to direct that the Drugs Disposal Committees of the States and the Central agencies shall take stock of all such seized contrabands and take steps for their disposal without any further verification, testing or sampling whatsoever. The concerned heads of B the Department shall personally supervise the process of destruction of drugs so identified for disposal. To the extent the seized Drugs and Narcotic Substances continue to choke the storage facilities and tempt the unscrupulous to indulge in pilferage and theft for sale or circulation in the market, the disposal of the stocks will reduce the hazards that go c with their continued storage and availability in the market. (2) Drugs that are seized after May, 1989 and where the trial and appeal and revision have also been finally disposed of:

In this category of cases while the seizure may have taken place afterthe introduction of Section 52A in the Statute book the non-disposal D of the drugs over a long period of time would also make it difficult to identify individuals who are responsible for pilferage, theft, replacement or such other mischief in connection with such seized contraband. The requirement of para 5.5 of standing order No. 1189 for such drugs to be disposed of after getting the same tested will also be an exercise in E futility and impractical at this distant point in time. Since the trials stand concluded and so also the proceedings in appeal, Revision etc. insistence upon sending the sample from such drugs for testing before the same are disposed of will be a fruitless exercise which can be dispensed with having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the conditions prevalent in the maalkhanas and the so called godowns and storage F facilities. The DDCs shall accordingly take stock of all such Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances in relation to which the trial of the accused persons has finally concluded and the proceedings have attained finality at all levels in the judicial hierarchy. The DDCs shall then take steps to have such stock also destroyed under the direct supervision of the head of the Department G concerned.

(3) cases in which the proceedings are still pending before the Courts at the level of trial court~llate court or before the Supreme Court: In such cases the heads of the Department concerned shall ensure H that appropriate applications are moved by the officers competent to do UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL [T. S. THAKUR, CJ!.] 695 so under Notification dated 16"' January, 2015 before the Drugs Disposal A Committees concerned and steps for disposal of such Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances taken without any further loss of time. 20. To sum up we direct as under: B (1) No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an c application under Section 52A(ii) of the Act, which shall be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be required under Sub-Section 3 of Section 52A, as discussed by us in the body of this judgment under the heading 'sejzure and sampling'. The sampling shall be done under the supervision D of the magistrate as discussed in paras 13 and 14 of this order.

(2) The Central Government and its agencies and so also the State Governments shal I within six months from today take appropriate steps to set up storage facilities forthe exclusive storage of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and E controlled Substances and Conveyances duly equipped with vaults and double locking system to prevent theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. The Central Government and the State Governments shall also designate an officer each for their respective storage facility and F provide for other steps, measures as stipulated in Standing Order No. 1/89 to ensure proper security against theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. (3) The Central Government and the State Governments shall be free to set up a storage facility for each district in the G States and depending upon the extent of seizure and store required, one storage facility for more than one districts. (4) Disposal of the seized drugs currently lying in the police maalkhans and other places used for storage shall be carried out by the DDCs concerned in terms of the directions issued H 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R. A by us in the body of this judgment under the heading 'disposal of drugs'.

21. Keeping in view the importance of the subject we request the Chief Justices of the High Courts concerned to appoint a Committee of Judges on the administrative side to supervise and monitor progress made B by the respective States in regard to the compliance with the above directions and wherever necessary, to issue appropriate directions for a speedy action on the administrative and even on the judicial side in public interest wherever considered necessary. 22. List the appeal for final hearing now on an early date. c Kalpana K. Tripathy Matter Adjourned.