The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-

Section 27A

Submitted by

Ashutosh Mishra

Division: C

Roll No: 18010224182

Batch: 2018-2023

Of

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University)

In

September, 2020

Under the guidance of

Ms. Pallavi Mishra

INTODUCTION
“Interpretation can be understood as the process by which the courts determine the meaning
of the statutory provisions for the purpose of applying it to the situations before them. There
are many rules of interpretation such as golden rule, literal rule, mischief rule, harmonious
rule and many other rules which have been evolved over the years.”
“The section 27 A of the act is a penalising act which says that any person who is either
directly or indirectly involved in any activities mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause
(viiia) of section 2 or if he harbours any person any person engaged in any of the
aforementioned activities, shall be punishable with rigorous punishment for ten to twenty
years and also shall be liable to fine of minimum one-lakh rupees which can extend to two-
lakh rupees.[Provided that the court fines a reason to fine more than 2 lakh rupees]”

LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION

“The rule enunciates that the words and language used in the statute should be interpreted
literally without adding or subtracting anything of their ordinary, natural and grammatical
meaning. Under this rule, the verbal expression of the law is taken into consideration and the
courts do not travel beyond the litera legis or the literal construction. It is also known as
grammatical rule.”

Case law and application of the rule

“In the case of S. Shanavas vs Intelligence Officer NCB RIU1, the term” “Financing” “was
not defined in the act. In such case the judge referred to Blacks Law Dictionary to find out
the meaning of the word. He then allowed the bail on the grounds that literal meaning of the
term financing does not mean sale of narcotic drug on credit.”
Illustration: “Mr. A has possession of ten packets of cocaine each weighing half-a-kilo.
According to the literal interpretation, Mr. A has committed offence under section 2(viii)(b)
(iii).” (Dilip Das vs State Of West Bengal)2

MISCHIEF RULE OF INTERPRETATION

Mischief Rule was derived from the Heydon’s case3 in 1584. It is the rule of purposive
construction because the purpose of this statute is most important while applying this rule. It
is called as mischief rule because the focus is on identifying and curing the mischief. Then
the purpose of this rule is to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. The judges shall
in such case interpret the law in such a manner which shall supress the mischief, improve the
remedy of the statute and supress inventions for the continuity of the mischief.

1
B.A. No. 6332/2009
2
2004 (4) CHN 655
3
(1584) 3 Co. Rep 76 ER 637
Case Law and application of the rule:

“In the case of Julie Singh vs. Union of India 4, the court applied the mischief rule of
application as it followed the parameters of the mischief rule of interpretation. The existing
law was this section 27 A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
After the amendment of 2014 the clause 2(viiia) was re-lettered as clause (viiib) as it escaped
the attention of the draftsman and a very obvious error crept into the section 27 A of the
NDPS act. Hence it made the section 27 A redundant and absurd. This was the mischief in
the act. It created the ambiguity or uncertainty. So, the judges interpreted the law in such a
manner where they tried to eliminate the mischief and tried to cure the remedy.”

“As it cannot be approached directly the court first went through the literal interpretation but
when it could not find any scope for the literal rule, it applied the literal rule. The court said
that it discards the literal interpretation of the statute.” The court said, “It permits the obvious
errors in the Statute and prefer a reasonable construction to avoid the lacuna, suppress
mischief and advance remedy in the light of Heydon’s case”.

Illustration: “If a case-law involves the sub-clause 2(viiib) (the re-lettered provision) or any
other provisions where an ambiguity/mischief arises, the mischief rule of interpretation shall
be used.”

CONCLUSION

4
Bom. Cr Apl No. 48 Of (2017)
“It was said in Dyke vs. Elliot 5 that all the penal statutes are to be construed strictly. Section
27A of the NDPS Act, 1985 is a penal provision and in the majority of the cases it is
interpreted literally. There are cases present where the court has followed the literal rule but
there are exceptions in every rule, but we should not follow a blanket rule. The different rules
of interpretation are key to successfully serve justice. These rules help to establish the
meaning of the statute in light of facts of the case. These rules help to prevent the spirit of the
statute and attach substantial meaning to the statute.”

5
1872 LR 4 PC 184