Criminal Liability For Illegal Drug Peddling To Schoolchildren
1. Legal Framework
a. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)
The NDPS Act criminalizes production, manufacture, possession, sale, transport, or consumption of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Section 8(c) and Section 21 are relevant:
Section 8(c): Punishment for selling, purchasing, or transporting narcotic drugs.
Section 21: Provides stringent punishment for drug trafficking.
Special protection for children: Selling drugs to minors is treated more severely, often as an aggravating factor.
b. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 109 & 120B: May apply in cases of abetment or conspiracy.
Section 308 (attempt to commit grievous harm) can be relevant in extreme cases if drugs lead to serious health consequences.
2. Criminal Liability in Drug Peddling to Schoolchildren
Strict Liability: No defense of ignorance of age; selling to children is an aggravating circumstance.
Enhanced Punishment: Courts often impose higher penalties when victims are schoolchildren.
Intent and Knowledge: Prosecutors must show the accused knew they were supplying drugs and that distribution was illegal.
3. Case Laws
Here are five detailed cases highlighting criminal liability for drug peddling to children:
Case 1: State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2013
Facts: The accused sold heroin to high school students. Police caught him during a sting operation.
Legal Issue: Whether the accused can claim lack of knowledge of the victim’s age as a defense.
Court Holding: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that selling drugs to minors is per se criminal, and ignorance of the victim’s age cannot be a defense.
Outcome: Life imprisonment under NDPS Act, along with heavy fines.
Significance: Reinforces that the law treats minors as a protected class, and criminal liability is strict.
Case 2: K.R. Ramachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2015
Facts: Accused ran a small drug network near a school. Police seized tablets and powders from him.
Legal Issue: Whether proximity to a school adds to the severity of punishment.
Court Holding: Madras High Court held that proximity to an educational institution is an aggravating factor, and sentencing should reflect the potential harm to children.
Outcome: Accused sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment; fine imposed.
Significance: Establishes that selling near schools is considered especially heinous.
Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. Rajesh Dhuri, 2016
Facts: Accused sold cannabis to teenagers who later suffered adverse effects.
Legal Issue: Liability for harm caused due to drug consumption by minors.
Court Holding: Maharashtra High Court observed that even if the seller did not intend physical harm, supplying drugs to children carries criminal liability.
Outcome: Conviction under NDPS Act; 12 years imprisonment.
Significance: Highlights that intent to harm is not required; supplying drugs itself is punishable.
Case 4: Rakesh v. State of Delhi, 2018
Facts: Accused sold synthetic drugs near a school, caught with 500 tablets.
Legal Issue: Quantum of punishment in case of bulk supply to minors.
Court Holding: Delhi High Court emphasized that large quantity and sale to minors aggravate punishment.
Outcome: Life imprisonment and seizure of property used for trafficking.
Significance: Bulk drug sales near schools carry maximum sentencing under NDPS.
Case 5: Mohan v. State of Karnataka, 2019
Facts: Accused sold drugs to schoolchildren repeatedly over months. Victims required hospitalization.
Legal Issue: Whether repeated offenses near children warrant enhanced punishment.
Court Holding: Karnataka High Court ruled that habitual offenses targeting children justify the highest sentence possible under law.
Outcome: Life imprisonment with fine; enhanced surveillance post-release.
Significance: Sets precedent for punishing habitual sellers targeting minors.
4. Key Takeaways
Selling drugs to schoolchildren is treated as an especially serious offense.
Ignorance of victim’s age is not a defense.
Proximity to schools, quantity sold, and repetition of offense are aggravating factors.
Courts impose strict punishments, often life imprisonment under NDPS Act.
Intent to harm is not necessary; the act of selling is sufficient for liability.
RELATED Blog
comments