Case Note & Summary
The applicant, a director of Vivalavita Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., sought quashing of FIR No. 48 of 2019 registered by the Anti Drug Department, Azad Maidan Unit, Crime Branch, Mumbai for offences under Sections 9A, 25A, 29, and 59 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The FIR alleged that the applicant's company exported a controlled substance, N-Phenethyl-4-Piperidone, to an Italian company without obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Narcotics Commissioner, as required under the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013. The substance had been added to Schedule B of the Order by Government Notification GSR 186(E) dated 27th February 2018, published in the Official Gazette on 6th March 2018. The export occurred on 1st June 2018. The applicant contended that the notification was not publicized, the NCB's Zonal Director had clarified that no NOC was needed, and the Customs Department had cleared earlier consignments without objection. The State argued that the notification was gazetted, the Zonal Director was not competent to issue NOCs, and the applicant's departure from India before registration of the FIR indicated guilt. The Court framed the sole issue of whether ignorance of a gazette notification can justify quashing of FIR. Relying on Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court held that ignorance of law is no defence, and the applicant's reliance on the Zonal Director's clarification was a mistake of law, not a mistake of fact. The FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence, and the petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Ignorance of Law - Section 79 IPC, Sections 9A, 25A, 29, 59 NDPS Act - The applicant sought quashing of FIR for export of N-Phenethyl-4-Piperidone without NOC from Narcotics Commissioner, claiming ignorance of the notification adding the substance to Schedule B of the NDPS Order. The Court held that ignorance of law is no defence and the notification was published in the Official Gazette, thus the applicant is deemed to have knowledge. The FIR disclosed prima facie commission of offences, hence quashing was not warranted. (Paras 8-10) B) Criminal Law - Mistake of Fact vs Mistake of Law - Section 79 IPC - The applicant argued that the Zonal Director of NCB had clarified that no NOC was required, but the Court noted that the Zonal Director was not the competent authority to issue NOCs. The clarification was a mistake of law, not a mistake of fact, and thus not a valid defence under Section 79 IPC. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether ignorance of a notification published in the Government Gazette can be a defence sufficient to justify quashing of FIR by holding that no cognizable offence is prima facie made out from a plain reading of the FIR.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed the application, holding that ignorance of law is no defence and the FIR discloses a prima facie cognizable offence. The petition for quashing of FIR was rejected.
Law Points
- ignorance of law is no defence
- mistake of law not excusable
- quashing of FIR not warranted if prima facie offence made out
- Section 79 IPC mistake of fact vs mistake of law
