ORDER
A. Pasayat, J.
1. The ambience of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the ‘Act’) is the subject-matter of adjudication in these applications for bail. Point involved being of singular importance, learned counsel for the parties have made copious reference to various provisions of the Act, and have raised several interesting and important points for consideration.
2. Controversy revolves round the question whether the mandate contained in Section 37 to the effect that where a person is accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under the Act, he shall not be released on bail or on his own bond, unless court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, is applicable to the cases covered Under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act. According to learned counsel for petitioners, restrictions imposed by Section 37(b)(ii) do not apply to the cases covered Under Section 20(b)(i). It is submitted that Section 37(b)(ii) is intended to be applied in cases of sentence where minimum sentence is five years, and not to cases like Section 20(b)(i) where maximum sentence is five years. According to learned counsel for State, since any contravention Under Section 20(b)(i) also attracts a punishment of five years, provisions of Section 37(b)(ii) also apply.
3. For resolution of dispute, it would be necessary to quote the relevant portions of Section 20(b)(i) and 37(b)(ii).
Section 20(b)(i).
20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis — Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,–
(a) …
(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable —
(i) where such contravention relates to ganja or the cultivation of cannabis plant, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees;
(ii) …
Section 37(b)(ii).
37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable —
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),–
(a) …
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless —
(i) …
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) …
4. Chapter IV of the Act deals with offences and penalties. We are concerned with cases where punishment prescribed is five years or more. Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 27(a) of the Act prescribe for punishment of minimum ten years. Section 20 deals with two types of punishments. Where contravention relates to ganja or cultivation of cannabis plant, punishment extends to five years; whereas for contraventions relating to cannabis other than ganja, minimum term prescribed is ten years. Similarly, punishment prescribed Under Sections 26 and 27 is less than five years. Under Section 28, whoever attempts to commit any offence punishable under Chapter IV or to cause such offence to be committed and in such attempt does any act towards the corn-mission of offence, attracts punishment provided for offence itself. Similar punishment is provided for abetment Under Section 29. Under Section 30, if any person makes preparation to do or omits to do anything which constitutes an offence punishable under any of the provisions of Section 15 to Section 25 and from the circumstances of the case it may be reasonably inferred that he was determined to carry out his intention to commit the offence, but had been prevented by circumstances independent of his will, he shall be punishable with rigorous punishment for a term which shall not be less than one-half of the maximum term. Enhanced punishment and death penalty is also provided in Sections 31 and 31-A of the Act. From the conspectus of penal provisions, it is apparent that the object was to make strigent provision for the control and regulation of operation relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Section 37 of the Act was substituted by the Act 2 of 1989 with effect from 29-5-1989. The object is to restrict grant of bail in certain specified cases which the legislature thought to be grievous in nature. The offences are non-bailable by virtue of level of punishments. But on technical grounds, drug offenders were being released on bail. In the light of certain difficulty faced in the enforcement of the Act, the need to amend law to further strengthen it was felt necessary. Restriction put by the legislature on grant of bail related to offences which carry punishment of five years or more.
5. Statutes imposing fine, penalty and punishment are to be strictly construed. As a general rule, penal enactments are to be construed strictly and not extended beyond their clear meaning. For a penalty to be enforced, it must be clear that the case is within the letter and spirit of statue (See Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour court, Meerut AIR 1984 SC 505). However, the language of the Parliament though not to be extended beyond its fair construction, is not to be interpreted in so slavishly a literal way as to stultify manifest purpose of the legislature. (See Comet Radio-vision Services Ltd. v. Farnell-Tandberg Ltd. (1971) 3 All England Reporter 230). The intention of the legislature must be given effect to as expressed in the language of provisions. Even where usual meaning of language fell short of the whole object of the legislature, a more extended meaning may be given to the words, if they are fairly succeptible of it. (See Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Ben Hiraben Manilal AIR 1983 SC 537.) In other words, interpretation would be such as would advance intendment, and thwart mischief and to keep path of access of justice through court unobstructed. (See Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. United Industrial Bank Limited, AIR 1983 SC 1272).
6. Where language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the same is to be applied regardless of its results. If the words of a statute on a proper construction can be read only in a particular way, then it cannot be read in any other way.
7. The language used in Section 37(b) is clear to the effect that offences which carry punishment of five years or more are covered by it. There is nothing in the language of the statute to infer that the sentence intended was minimum limit, and not maximum limit. The language being clear and unambiguous there is no scope for taking a different view. In that view of the matter, it would be unreasonable to accept interpretation put by learned counsel for petitioners. In view of clear language of Section 37(b), offences covered by Section 20(b)(i) come within the ambit of the former provision. In other words, any person who is alleged to have committed an offence in terms of Section 20(b)(i), is not to be granted bail unless court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
8. Coming to the facts of individual cases, I find that courts below have considered the facts involved in their proper perspective, and have refused bail. There is no scope for interference with the orders passed. Bail applications are accordingly rejected.
Criminal Misc. Cases are disposed of.