The order of the trial to refuse bail to Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan and the co-defendant in the drug case on a cruise ship in Mumbai has sparked widespread debate about the “tough” provisions of the NDPS law and whether the star kid’s celebrity status has negatively impacted the problem. India Today takes a look at the provisions of the NDPS law and its interpretations by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Courts on the role of the “drug user”.
ALSO READ | The framing of Aryan Khan | OPINION
The “Statement of Objects and Reasons” in the 2001 amendment to the NDPS Act states that the changes were made to “restructure” and “streamline” the law to provide severe punishments for those involved in drug trafficking are while indulging drug users and addicts.
“While the law provides severe penalties for drug traffickers, it takes a reformatory approach to addicts. Given the general delay in trials, it was found that addicts preferred not to invoke the provisions of the law. The strict bond provisions of the law add to their misery, ”says the explanation of the objects and reasons.
“It is therefore proposed that the penalty structure be streamlined to ensure that drug traffickers with significant amounts of drugs are punished with dissuasive penalties, but less severe penalties for addicts and those who commit less serious offenses. This requires a rationalization of the sentence structure provided for in the law. It is also proposed to limit the application of strict bail rules to offenders who commit serious crimes, ”she added.
OPINION | Aryan Khan case: let’s give our youth a safe space
Section 64 A, which was added by this amendment, therefore requires that a drug addict or user who voluntarily agrees to treatment to eradicate the addiction will be prosecuted.
Section 27 of the law provides for a punishment for the consumption of a drug. The provision itself only allows up to one year in prison for “scheduled drugs” such as heroin and cocaine, while the use of unscheduled drugs results in up to six months in prison.
Section 28 prescribes the punishment for an “attempt” to commit a crime, while Section 29 speaks of the punishment for aiding and abetting a criminal conspiracy to commit a crime.
In various rulings, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Courts have taken note of the “reforming aspect” of the law.
In April 2020, a three-member chamber of the Supreme Court ruled in the Hira Singh case that “the intent of the legislature was to streamline the penalty structure to ensure that drug traffickers who deal significant amounts of drugs are punished with dissuasive penalties”. , the addicts and those who commit less serious crimes are sentenced to less severe penalties. “
ALSO READ | Aryan Khan Drug Case: Why Getting Bail Under NDPS Law Is Difficult
A two-judge bank of the Supreme Court in the 2004 N Basheer v. Kerala case had stated, “Under Section 27 of the 1985 Act, there was a minor concession in favor of drug addicts by providing a reduced sentence if the defendant could demonstrate that the narcotic or psychotropic substance in his possession was intended for his personal consumption and not for sale or distribution. “
“The provisions of the 1985 NDPS Act were changed by Amending Act 9 of 2001, which streamlined the structure of the penalties under the Act by providing graduated penalties related to the amount of a narcotic or psychotropic substance in relation to the crime committed. The application of strict bond regulations was also restricted to perpetrators who had committed serious crimes, ”the bank noted.
Attorney Rajiv Mohan, who served as special prosecutor for the CBI and ED, said that the provisions of Section 27 concern “personal consumption”, which is a bail-off crime, and that the NCB is “trying to make allegations of major conspiracy”. .
“The reformative aspects of the change only apply if the offense is mere consumption according to Section 27, which is a criminal offense worth bail. For more serious crimes such as buying, financing, etc., the reform provision under Section 64A does not apply, ”Mohan said.
ALSO READ | Sara Ali Khan wishes Amit Shah a happy birthday, is trolled
“I saw in the bail warrant that Sections 28 and 29 are also included, but conspiracy and incitement will be the main offenses falling under Section 27, which is a bail sentence. However, if they attribute Section 27A, which is a more serious offense of drug trafficking funding and offender placement, then it is a non-recoverable offense. Whether they can find evidence of this remains to be seen, ”Mohan said.
Speaking to India Today, senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi stated that the case had many troubling features to which the NCB has so far failed to respond. “I think the entire rehabilitative focus of the law (the NDPS law) is being forgotten; the fact that the statute is supposed to deal with the great fish is forgotten. If the severely understaffed and heavily overworked NCB is to operate on such isolated cases, I don’t think we have any way of operating a good anti-drug control system in this country, ”said Singhvi.
Attorney Vikas Gupta also said that the investigation carried out by the NCB is currently putting “disproportionate punishment” on Aryan Khan, even though there is currently no evidence of actual possession or purchase of drugs.
CLOCK | Aryan Khan’s pre-trial detention extended until October 30th
एक टिप्पणी भेजें