Holding

For the purpose of sentencing under the NDPS Act, only the actual weight of the narcotic drug present in a mixture is to be considered, making the appellant's 60 g of heroin a small quantity punishable under Section 21(b).

Summary

The appellant, E. Micheal Raj, was caught carrying a bag containing 4.07 kg of a heroin mixture that tested at 1.4% and 1.6% purity, amounting to roughly 60 g of pure heroin. He was convicted under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act for possessing a commercial quantity and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the quantity for sentencing should be measured by the total weight of the seized mixture or by the actual drug content. The Court held that only the actual weight of the narcotic drug is relevant, classifying 60 g as a 'small quantity' (greater than 5 g but less than 250 g) and thus falling under Section 21(b). Consequently, the conviction under Section 21(c) was set aside, the sentence reduced to six years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000, and the appellant was ordered to be released.

Issues considered

The appropriate basis for determining the quantity of a narcotic drug for sentencing under the NDPS Act – total weight of seized material versus actual drug content by weight.
Whether the appellant's possession constitutes a 'small quantity', 'intermediate quantity', or 'commercial quantity' under Section 21 of the NDPS Act.
Whether the conviction under Section 21(c) (commercial quantity) is legally sustainable in the facts of the case.

Subjects

NDPS Actsentencingquantity of drugpuritysmall quantitycommercial quantityopium derivativemanufactured drugrationalisation of punishment

Judgment

\ )

[2008] 4 S.C.R. 644

A E. MICHEAL RAJ
v.
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTIC CONTROL
BUREAU
(Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 2005) .
B MARCH 11, 2008
[P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
c (Amendment) Act, 2001 - Object of - Held: Is to rationalize
the sentence structure so as to ensure that while drug traffickers
who traffic in significant quantities of drugs are punished with
deterrent sentence, the addicts and those who commit less
serious offences are sentenced to less severe punishment -
Under the rationalised sentence structure, the punishment
0
varies depending upon the quantity of offending material -
Interpretation of statutes - Legislative intent - Sentence/
Sentencing - Rationalization of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
E (as amended by Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
(Amendment) Act, 2001) - ss.2(xxiiia), 2(viia), 2(xvi)(e), 2(xi),
8 and 21 - Notification dated 19. 10. 2001 - Entry 56
Imposition of punishment - Basis for - Held: Based on
quantity of offending substance - The Act provides for
F proportionate sentence for possessing small, intermediate
and commercial quantities of offending material - Sentence/
Sentencing - Rationalization of
Quantity of narcotic drug - Determination of - Held: For
G determining the quantity, it is only the actual content by weight I
I
of the narcotic drug which is relevant and not the total weight ,
of the substance - On facts, total quantity of contraband seized
from accused was 4. 07 Kgs. - Percentage content of narcotic
drug was 60 gms. which is more than 5 gms., i.e. small quantity,

H 644
E. MICHEAL RAJ v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, 645
_, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU
. .

... ~ but Jess than 250 gms., i.e. commercial quantity - Thus, A
accused was punishable under s. 21 (b) of the Act - Further,
accused was merely a carrier and not -a kingpin - In these
circumstances, ends ofjustice would be subserved if sentence
is reduced to 6 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine.
The prosecution case was that a bag containing two B
packets of contraband articles was recovered from the
custody of the. accused. The officials took sample of 5
gm each from both the packets. According to the test
report, the contraband article contained 1.4% and 1.6%
heroin. The Special Judge under the NDPS Act found that c
the substance found in possession of the accused was
an opium derivative and since the manufactured drug
weighed 4.07 kg., it would come under s.21(c) being a
commercial quantity, but since the accused was only a
carrier and was not the beneficiary of the transaction, he D
would not be awarded the maximum sentence and would
be awarded the minimum sentence of 10 years' rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of rupees one lakh and in default
of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for one more
year. The High Court maintained the conviction and E
sentence awarded by the Special Judge.
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that
the conviction and sentence of the appellant is contrary
to law because the total quantity of contraband seized
,.., from him was 4.07 kgs.; and since the purity of heroin F
---.J' was 1.4% and 1.6% respectively in two samples, therefore
the quantity of heroin in possession was only 60 gms. i.e.
[(1.4+1.6)/2 = 1.5% of 4.07 kgs. = 60 gms.], thus, the total
quantity of heroin seized was below the commercial
quantity of 250 gms. G
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
...... HELD: 1. The provisions of the NDPS Act were
amended by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001, which rationalized H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

· A the punishment structure under the NDPS Act by
providing graded sentences linked to the quantity of
narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances carried. 'Small
quantity' and 'commercial quantity' were defined under
s.2(xxiiia) and s.2(viia) respectively. New s.21 also provided
B for proportionate sentence for possessing small,
intermediate and commercial quantities of offending
material. As· per Entry 56 of the Notification dated
19.10.2001 issued by the Central Government which dealt
with heroin, small quantity has been mentioned as 5 gms.
c and commercial quantity has been mentioned as 250 gms.
[Para 6] [650-G-H; 651-A-B]
2. The possession of offending substance. would be
considered for an offence punishable under the NDPS
Act, as heroin is an opium derivative as per s.2(xvi)(e)
,0 which says that 'all preparations containing more than
0.2 percent of morphine or containing any
diacetylmorphine' is an opium derivative. Further, under
s.2(xi), all opium derivatives fall under the category of
manufactured drug. The offending substance which has
E been found in possession of the accused-appellant· is an
opium derivative and hence a manufactured drug, the
possession of which is in contravention of the provisions
of s. 8 of the NDPS Act which prohibits certain operations
to the effect that no person shall produce, manufacture,
F possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use,
consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into
India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance. [Para 1O] [655-E-H]
3. The contention of respondent cannot be accepted
G that the rate of purity is irrelevant and any preparation
which is more than the commercial quantity of 250 gms.
and contains 0.2% of heroin or more would be punishable
under s.21 (c) of the NDPS Act. The intention of the
legislature is to levy punishment based on the content of
H the offending drug in the mixture and not on the weight
\ J
E. MICHEAL RAJ v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, 647
NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU

of the mixture as such. In the mixture of a narcotic drug A
~ .._
or a psychotropic substance with one or more neutral
substance/s, the quantity of the neutral substance/s is not
to be taken into consideration while determining the small
quantity or commercial quantity of a narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance. It is only the actual content by B
weight of the narcotic drug which is relevant for the
purposes of determining whether it would constitute
small quantity or commercial quantity. [Para 13] [656-F-H:
657-A-C]
Ouseph alias Thankachan v. State of Kera/a (2004) 4 c
SCC 446; Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat
(2005) 7 sec 550 - referred to.
4. The narcotic drug which was found in possession
of the appellant as per the Analyst' report was 60 gms.
D
which is more than 5 gms., i.e. small quantity, but less than
250 gms., i.e. commercial quantity. The quantity of 60 gms.
( ~ is lesser than the commercial quantity, but greater than
the small quantity and, thus, the appellant would be
punishable under s.21 (b) of the NDPS Act. Further, it is
evident that the appellant was merely a carrier and not a E
kingpin. In these circumstances, the ends of justice would
be subserved if the sentence of the accused-appellant is
reduced to 6 years' rigorous. imprisonment with fine of
Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine rigorous
imprisonment for six months. [Paras 17-18] [660-D-F] F
>._
=;I'
...
i CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1250 Of 2005
From the final Judgment and Order dated 25/8/2004 of
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. A No. 185/2004 G
K.V. Vishwanathan, M:-Gireesh Kumar, Avjeeth K. Lala,
and Khwairakpam Nobin Singh for the Appellant.
Vikas Sharma, Binu Tamta and Sushma Suri for the
Respondent. H
'
)

648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
..... .-
P.P. NAOLEKAR, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is
directed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2004 of
the Kerala High Court iri Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2004
whereby the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant
B under Section 21 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS
Act") was confirmed.
~
2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 5.3.2001, the
c Intelligence Officer was informed by an informant that two
persons with certain drugs would be arriving by a Tamil Nadu
Transport Corporation Bus at Thiruvananthapuram Bus Stand.
The Officer along with other persons and the informant went to
the bus stand and waited for the bus. At about 9.00 a.m., the
two accused alighted from the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation
D
bus. They were identified by the informant. They were intercepted .
by the officials. The officials disclosed their identity and the
accused were searched. When asked about possession of .,.._ )

narcotic drugs, it was admitted by the accused that they were
carrying 4 kgs. of heroin and they handed over the bag to the
E Officer. The bag contained two packets wrapped in Tamil
newspapers secured with brown adhesive tape in which light
grey powder was found. Two samples of 5 gms. each from both
the drug packets were packed, sealed and sent for testing to
the Laboratory. The accused were arrested, but the second
F accused escaped while on the way to produce them before the ,..
Magistrate. On 26.3.2001, the Customs House Laboratory, t- '
Cochin sent a report confirming the samples as answering to
the test of crude heroin, a narcotic drug covered under the NDPS
Act. The report further said that the Laboratory was not
G equipped to conduct a quantitative test. Thus, the samples
were sent for quantitative test. On 22.2.2002, a quantitative
test was done in the Customs Laboratory, Chennai where
the purity was tested and the quantitative test report indicated
as follows:
H
E. MICHEAL RAJ v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, 649
NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]

S.No. Marking on Lab No. Wt of the Wt of the Purity A
the cover sample remnant
received received
with plastic with plastic
cover cover

1. 81 235 5.6g 5.0 g 1.4%
B

2. 83 236 4.9 g 4.6g 1.6%

3. The accused-appellant was charged with the offence
committed under Section 8(c) read with Sections 21 and 29 of c
the NDPS Act by the Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control
Bureau. The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the NDPS
Act found that the substance found in possession of the accused
was an opium derivative which has been defined under Section
2(xvi), and under Section 2(xvi)(e) a preparation, containing D
more than 0.2% of morphine or diacetylmorphine, is an opium
·-...(
derivative; and that since this contraband article contained 1.4%
and 1.6% heroin it is an opium derivative, and punishable under
Section 21 of the NDPSAct. Since the manufactured drug being
carried weighed 4.07 kg., it would come under Section 21 (c) E
being a commercial quantity, but since the accused is only a
carrier and is not the beneficiary of the transaction, he would
not be awarded the maximum sentence and would be awarded
the minimum sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and

."'1 a fine of rupees one lakh, in default of payment of fine rigorous
imprisonment for one more year. On an appeal being preferred,
F
the High Court found the accused guilty. The High Court said
71
that Section 21 of the NDPS Act when read with Section 2(xi)
which defines 'manufactured drug', makes it evident that the

. ~
packet seized from the appellant is a manufactured drug. The
offence can be in respect of the manufactured drug as well as
preparation of manufactured drug. 'Preparation' has been
defined in Section 2(xx). Again, any mixture of narcotic drug
with other substances will also come within Section 21 of the
G

,. NDPS Act, so the rate of purity becomes irrelevant. The purity
H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A test does not advance the case of the accused. As per the High
Court, it is the whole quantity of mixture which has to be taken
into consideration for imposing the punishment under Section
21 of the NDPS Act. The High Court maintained· the conviction
and sentence awarded by the Special Judge.
B 4. The only submission made by Shri K.V.. Viswanathan,
. learned counsel for the appellant is confined to the limited issue
relating to sentence of the appellant under Section 21 of the
NDPS Act. As per the learned counsel, the conviction and
sentence of the appellant is contrary to law because the total
C quantity of contraband seized from him was 4.07 kgs. Since
the purity of heroin is 1.4% and 1.6% respectively in two samples,
therefore the quantity of heroin in possession is only 60 gms.
[(1.4+1.6)/2 = 1.5% of 4.07 kgs. = 60 gms.). Thus, the total
quantity of heroin seized is below 250 gms., i.e. below the
D commercial quantity. It is submitted that it is not the total weight
of the substance allegedly recovered that is material, but the
percentage content of heroin translated into weight that is
relevant.
5. On the other hand, Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel
E appearing for the respondent urged that it is only the weight of
the substance found in possession of the appellant and
recovered from him ought to be seen, and once the substance
tested positive for heroin, its percentage content in the
substance was irrelevant, the entire substance would be
F viewed as a narcotic drug and consequently the total weight of
the substance ought to be taken into consideration for
determining whether it was a 'small quantity' or.a 'commercial
quantity'.
G 6. The provisions of the NDPS Act were amended by the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act,
2001 (Act 9 of 2001) (w.eJ 2.10.2001 ), which rationalized the
punishment structure under the NDPS Act by providing graded
sentences linked to the quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances carried. Thus, by the Amending Act, the sentence
H
-- ' i
E. MICHEAL RAJ v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, 651
NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
.. ~
structure changed drastically. 'Small quantity' and 'commercial A
quantity' were defined under Section 2(xxiiia) and Section 2(viia)
respectively. New Section 21 also provides for proportionate
sentence for possessing small, intermediate and commercial
quantities of offending material. As per Entry 56 of the Notification
dated 19.10.2001 issued by the Central· Government which deals B
with heroin, small q'uantity has been mentioned as 5 gms. and
.commercial quantity has been mentioned as 250 gms. So, the
-+ basic question for decision is whether the contravention involved
in this case is small, intermediate or commercial quantity under
Section 21 of the NDPSAct, and whether the total weight of the c
substance is relevant or percentage of heroin content transla~ed
into weight is relevant for ascertaining the quantity recovered
from the accused.
7. To appreciate the arguments of the parties, the relevant
Sections of the NDPS Act have to be looked into, which are as D
under:
~
Section 2 (viia) (inserted by Amending Act 9 of 2001
w.e. f 2.10.2001)
"'Commercial quantity', in relation to narcotic drugs and E
psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than
the quantity specified by the Central Government by
notification in the Official Gazette;"
Section 2(xxiiia) (inserted by Amending Act 9 of 2001
..... F
'i w.e.f 2.10.2001)
'"Small quantity', in relation to narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances, means any quantity lesser than
the quantity specified by the Central Government by
notification in the Official Gazette;" G
Section 2(xvi)
"'Opium derivative' means-
(a) Medicinal opium, that is, opium which has undergone
the processes necessary to adapt it for medicinal use in H
' ) '

652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A accordance with the requirements of the Indian
Pharmacopoeia ot any other Pharmacopoeia notified in
this behalf by the Central Government, whether in powder
form or granulated or otherwise or mixed with neutral
materials;
B
(b) Prepared opium, that is, any product of opium by any
series of operations designed to transform opium into an
extract suitable for smoking and the dross or other residue
remaining after opium is smoked;

c (c) Phenanthrene alkaloids, namely, morphine, codeine,
thebaine and their salts;
(d) Diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also known as
diamorphine or heroin and its salts; and
D (e) All preparations containing more than 0.2 percent of
morphine or containing any diacetylmorphine;"
Section 2 (xi)
"'Manufactured drug' means -
E (a) All coca derivatives, medicinal cannabis, opium
derivatives and poppy straw concentrate;
(b) Any other narcotic substance or preparation which the
Central Government may, having regard to the available
F information as to its nature or to a decision, if any, under
any International Convention, by notification in the Official
Gazette, declare to be a manufactured drug;
but does not include any narcotic substance or preparation
which the Central Government may, having regard to the
G available information as to its nature or to a decision, if
any, under any International Convention, by notification in
the Official Gazette, declare not to be a manufactured
drug."
H Section 21. Punishment for contravention in relation
E. MICHEAL RAJ v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, 653
NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
,,. ' . to manufactured drugs and preparations [substituted A
by the Amending Act 9 of 2001, w.e.f. 2.10.2001]

"Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or
any rule or order made or condition of licence granted
thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases,
B
transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses
any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any
.. ,-t' manufactured drug shall be punishable, -

(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six c
months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand
rupees, or with both;

(b) where the contravention involves quantity, lesser than
commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with
D
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to
-'"( ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh
rupees;
(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity,
with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be E
less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years
and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less
than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh
rupees:
,.._
...., F
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded
in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh
rupees."

8. The.Statement of Objects and Reasons concerning the
Amending Act of 2001 is as follows: G
"Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
~ provides deterrent punishment for various offences relating
to illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances. Most of the offences invite uniform punishment
H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A of minimum ten years' rigorou~ imprisonment which may
extend up to twenty years. While the Act envisages severe
punishments for drug traffickers, it envisages reformative
approach towards addicts. In view of the general delay in
trial it has been found that the addicts prefer not to invoke
B the provisions of the Act. The strict bail provisions under
the Act add to their misery. .,
Therefore, it is proposed to rationalise the sentence
structure so as to ensure that while drug traffickers who
traffic in significant quantities of drugs are punished with
c
deterrent sentences, the addicts and those who commit
less serious offences are sentenced to less severe
punishment. This requires rationalisation of the sentence
structure provided under the Act. It is also proposed to
D restrict the application of strict bail provisions to those
offenders who indulge in serious offences."
9. The entry of the Notification under which the substance
found in possession of the appellant falls is Entry 56 or Entry
239. The relevant portion of the Notification dated 19.10.2001
E issued by the Central Government reads as under:
"S.O. 1055(E), dated 19-10-2001. - In exercise of the
powers conferred by clause.s (viia) and (xxiiia) of section 2 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic SubstancesAct, 1985 (61
F of 1985) and in supersession of Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue Notification S.O. 527(E) dated 15th
July, 1996, except as respects things done or omitted to be
done before such supersession, the Central Government
hereby specifies the quantity mentioned in columns 5 and 6
G of the Table below, in relation to the narcotic drug and
psychotropic substance mentioned in the corresponding entr.y
in columns 2 to 4 of the said Table, as the small quantity and
commercial quantity respectively for the purposes of the said
.,,
clauses of that section.
H l
.,J
E. MICHEAL RAJ v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, 655
NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]

S.No. Name of Other Chemical Small Commercial A
Narcotic non· Name Quantity Quantity
Drug and propriety (in gm) (in gm./kg.)
Psychotropic name
Substance
........
B
56 Heroin Diacetylmorphine 5 250gm.

239 Any mixture ..................... * **
or preparation
that of with
orwithouta c
neutral
matertal,of
any of the
above drugs.

* Lesser of the small quantity between the quantities given against D
the respective narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances men-
tioned above forming part of the mixture.
Les~er of the commercial quantity between the quantities given
against the respective narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances
mentioned above forming part of the mixture."
E
10. The possession of offending substance would be
considered an offence punishable under the NDPS Act, as
heroin is an opium derivative as per Section 2(xvi)(e) which says
that "all preparations containing more than 0.2 percent of
; morphine or containing any diacetylmorphine" is an opium F
derivative. Further, according to Section 2(xi), all opium
derivatives fall under the category of manufactured drug. Thus,
we conclude that the offending substance is an opium derivative
and hence a manufactured drug, the possession of which is in
contravention of the provisions of Section 8 of the NDPS Act G
which prohibits certain operations to the effect that no person
shall produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport,
warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State,
import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug
or psychotropic substance.
H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A 11. In the present case, the opium derivative which has ..., .
?

been found in possession of the accused-appellant is prohibited
under Section 8 of the NDPS Act and thus punishable under
Section 21 thereof. The question is only with regard to the ~ .
quantum of punishment.
B 12. As a consequence of the Amending Act, the sentence
structure underwent a drastic change. The Amending Act for
the first time introduced the concept of 'commercial quantity' in
relation to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances by adding -f.A
clause (viia) in Section 2, which defines this term as any quantity
c greater than a quantity specifieo by the Central Government by
notification in the Official Gazette. Further, the term 'small
quantity' is defined in Section 2, clause (xxiiia), as any quantity
lesser than the quantity specified by the Central Government by
notification in the Official Gazette. Under the rationalised
D sentence structure, the punishment would vary depending upon
whether the quantity of offending material is 'small quantity',
'commercial quantity' or something in-between.
~·
· 13. It appear& from the Statement of Objects and Reasons
of the Amending Act of 2001 that the intention of the legislature
E was to rationalize the sentence structure so as to ensure that
while drug traffickers who traffic in significant quantities of drugs
are punished with deterrent sentence, the addicts and those
who commit less serious offences are sentencedto less severe
punishment. Under the rationalised sentence structure, the ~
F punishment would vary depending upon the quantity of offending
material. Thus, we find it difficult to accept the argument
.,.. A
I

advanced on behalf of the respondent that the rate of purity is
irrelevant since any preparation which is more than the
commercial quantity of 250 gms. and contains 0.2% of heroin
G or more would be punishable under Section 21 (c) of the NDPS
Act, because the intention of the legislature as it appears to us
is to levy punishment based on the content of the offending drug
in the mixture and not on the weight of the mixture as such. This .,.......
may be tested on the following rationale. Supposing 4 gms. of
H heroin is recovered from an accused, it would amount to a small "
E. MICHEAL RAJ v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, 657
~
' NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU [P.P. NAOLEKAR. J.]

quantity, but when the same 4 gms. is mixed with 50 kgs. of the A
" ... powered sugar, it would be quantified as a commercial quantity.
"
In the mixture of a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance
-· with one or more neutral substance/s, the quantity of the neutral
substance/s is not to be taken into consideration while
determining the small quantity or commercial quantity of a B
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. It is only the actual
content by weight of the narcotic drug which is relevant for the
purposes of determining whether it would constitute small
• t +
quantity or commercial quantity. The intention of the legislature
for introduction of the amendment as it appear to us is to punish c
the people who commit less serious offences with less severe
punishment and those who commit grave .crimes, such as
trafficking in significant quantities, with more severe punishment.
14. In the case of Ouseph alias Thankachan v. State of
Kera/a, (2004) 4 SCC 446, this Court in para 8 has held as D
under:
'The question to be considered by us is whether the
psychotropic substance was in a small quantity and if so,
whether it was intended for personal consumption. The
words "small quantity" have been specified by the Central E
Government by the notification dated 23-7-1996. Learned
counsel for the State has brought to our notice that as per
the said notification small quantity has been specified as
1 gram. If so, the quantity recovered from the appellant is
far below the limit of small quantity specified in the F
"'
-'( notification issued by the Central Government. It is
admitted that each ampoule contained only 2 ml and each
ml contains only .3 mg. This means the total quantity found
in the possession of the appellant was only 66 mg. This is
less than 1/10th of the limit of small quantity specified G
under the notification."
From the aforesaid decision, we find that the Court has
---< taken the quantity of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance
'
found in the mixture, relevant for the purpose of imposition of
H

l
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
'
>
\-

A punishment.
....
')
15. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance
on the decision of this Court in Amarsingh Ramjibhai Ba rot v.
State of Gujarat, (2005) 7 SCC 550, in support of his contention
that the entire material found in possession irrespective of the
B con,tent of the offending material has to be taken into
consideration while imposing the punishment. In Amarsingh
case (supra), two persons, namely, Amarsingh and Danabhai
-...f _,
were apprehended. Amarsingh was found carrying a plastic bag
which contained a black-coloured liquid substance weighing
c 920 gms. Similarly, 4.250 kg. of grey-coloured substance was
recovered from Danabhai. Samples were sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL). The FSL report indicated that the
sample from Amarsingh was opium as described in the NDPS
Act containing 2.8% anhydride morphine apart from pieces of
D poppy flowers and the sample relating to Danabhai was reported
to be opium as described in the NDPS Act having 1.2%
anhydride morphine and also containing pieces of poppy
"}--4
flowers. Both the accused were charged and tried under
Sections 15, 17 and 18 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
E The High Court found that the conviction under Sections 17 and
18 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act was not correct, but
convictedAmarsingh under Section 21 (c) and also under Section
21 (c) read with Section 29 of the NDPSAct, for individually being
in possession of opium and for being jointly, in conspiracy with
F the other accused. The High Court found the accused possessed
of commercial quantity and convicted and sentenced him for A
y
10 years' rigorous imprisonment plus fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Being
aggrieved, Amarsingh approached this Court. This Court has
held in para 14 of the judgment as under:
G "There does not appear to be any acceptable evidence
that the black substance found with the appellant was
"coagulated juice of the opium poppy" and "any mixture,
with or without any neutral material, of the coagulated juice y
of the opium poppy". FSL has given its opinion that it is
H "opium as described in the NDPS Act". That is not binding
'
,
E. MICHEAL RAJ v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, 659
NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
.._
.,- ,,.. on the court." A
The Court further held that the evidence also does not
indicate that the substance recovered from the appellant would
fall within the meaning of sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Section
2(xvi), but residuary clause (e) would apply and consequently it
would amount to opium derivative as all opium derivatives fall B
within the expression 'manufactured drugs'. Thus, the Court
arrived at the conclusion that what was recovered from the
~.
appellant was manufactured drug and the offence proved
against the appellant fell clearly within Section 21 of the NDPS
Act for illicit possession of manufactured drug. The Court c
concluded and held in para 17 as under:
"In respect of opium derivatives (at Sl.No.93) in the said
notification, 5 grams is specified as "small quantity" and
250 grams as "commercial quantity". The High Court was,
D
therefore, right in finding that the appellant was guilty of
unlawful possession of "commercial quantity" of a
I "'(
manufactured drug. Consequently, his case would tie
covered by clause (c) and not clause (a) or (b) of Section
21 of the NDPS Act."
E
This Court has, therefore, upheld the imposition of minimum
punishment under Section 21 (c) of 10 years' rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1 lakh.

16. On going through Amarsingh case (supra), we do
not find that the Court was considering the question of mixture F
"~
of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance with one or more
neutral substance/s. In fact that was not the issue before the
Court. The black-coloured liquid substance was taken as an
opium derivative and the FSL report to the effect that it contained
. 2.8% anhydride morphine was considered only for the purposes G
of bringing the substance within the sweep of Section 2(xvi)(e)
as 'opium derivative' which requires a minimum 0.2% morphine.
..--(
The content found of 2.8% anhydride morphine was not at all
considered for the purposes of deciding whether the substance
recovered was a small or commercial quantity and the Court H
\ )

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
~

A took into consideration the entire substance as an opium "'II
>
derivative which was not mixed with one or more neutral "
substance/s. Thus, Amarsingh case (supra) cannot be taken
to be an authority for advancing the proposition made by the
learned counsel for the respondent that the entire substance
B recovered and seized irrespective of the content of the narcotic
drug. or psychotropic substance in it would be considered for
application of Section 21 of the NDPS Act for the purpose of
imposition of punishment. We are of the view that when any _...,, -1
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is found mixed with
c one or more neutral substance/s, for the purpose of imposition
of punishment it is the content of the narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance which shall be taken into consideration.
17. In the present case, the narcotic drug which was found
in possession of the appellant as per the Analyst's report is 60
D gms. which is more than 5 gms., i.e. small quantity, but less than
250 gms., i.e. commercial quantity. The quantity of 60 gms. is
lesser than the commercial quantity, but greater than the small ~~
quantity and, thus, the appellant would be punishable under
Section 21 (b) of the NDPS Act. Further, it is evident that the
E appellant is merely a carrier and is not a kingpin. \-"
18. In these circumstances, the ends of justice would be ·'I
subserved if we reduce the sentence of the accused-appellant
to 6 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- and
in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for six
F months. We order accordingly. ..
-,.-
19. The accused-appellant is stated to be in. jail since
6.3.2001. He has, therefore, undergone the sentence imposed
on him. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any
other case.
G
20. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
D.G. Appeal disposed of. ,....