Sherkhan Salimkhan Pathan vs State Of Gujarat on 14 July, 2025

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Sherkhan Salimkhan Pathan vs State Of Gujarat on 14 July, 2025

                                                                         SLP(Crl.)   No.5533/2025




     ITEM NO.13                             COURT NO.9                 SECTION II-E

                                  S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                         Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)   No.5533/2025

     [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-03-2025
     in CRMA No. 4469/2025 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
     Ahmedabad]

     SHERKHAN SALIMKHAN PATHAN                                          Petitioner(s)

                                                   VERSUS

     STATE OF GUJARAT                                                   Respondent(s)

     FOR ADMISSION and I.R.
     IA No. 92217/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
     JUDGMENT

IA No. 92218/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

Date : 14-07-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

For Petitioner(s) Mr. I H Syed, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rohit Gautam, Adv.

Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, AOR

For Respondent(s) :

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

1. The High Court has denied regular bail to the petitioner in

connection with FIR being No.11195050240190 registered with Tharad
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.07.18
17:54:15 IST 1
Reason:
SLP(Crl.) No.5533/2025

Police Station, District Banaskantha for the offence punishable

under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 22(b), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act“).

2. On 16-4-2025,a Coordinate bench of this Court passed the

following order:-

“1.Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
states that the quantity of contraband substance which
is alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is
not commercial quantity but intermediate quantity.

2.He seeks time to produce on record the notification to
substantiate his submission.

3.List the matter next week.”

3. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.I.H. Syed,

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner produced a

notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of

Revenue dated 5 February 2015, which reads thus:-

“MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2015

S.O.374(E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses
(viia) and (xxiiia) of section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Central
Government hereby makes following amendment to the notification
of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part
II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O. 1055(E), dated
the 19th October, 2011, namely:-

In the said notification, in the Table, after serial number
238E and the entries relating thereto, the following serial
number and the entries shall be inserted, namely:-

       Sl.No. Name of      Other non-     Chemical     Small   Commer
               Narcotic    proprietary    Name         Quantit cial
               Drug and    name                        y (in   Quanti


                                                                                        2
                                                                       SLP(Crl.)    No.5533/2025




              Psychotropi                                       gm.)         ty (in
              c Substance                                                    gm./
              (Internatio                                                    kg.)
              nal non-
              proprietary
              name)
        1          2               3                   4           5               6
     “238F.   Medhedrone    4-                   (RS)-2-           2            50
                            methylmethacath      methylamino-                  gm”.
                            inone                1-(4-
                            (4-MMC)              methylphenyl
                            4-                   )
                            METHYLEPHEDRONE      propan-1-one


                                                    F.No.N-11011/2/2014-NC-II(3)

SATYA NARAYANA DASH, Under Secy.”

4. Relying on the notification, referred to above, the learned

counsel would submit that what was recovered from his client was

intermediate quantity and not commercial quantity.

5. According to him, if the contraband recovered was of

intermediate quantity then rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS act

would not apply.

6. Be that as it may. We take notice of this fact that in the

past also one FIR was registered against the petitioner herein for

the very same offence.

7. We are informed that the Special Court(NDPS) has just framed

charge against the petitioner.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the

Special Court, NDPS i.e. the trial court to ensure that the trial

3
SLP(Crl.) No.5533/2025

is completed within a period of six months from today.

9. We clarify that we have, otherwise, not gone into the merits

of the matter.

10. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(CHANDRESH)                                      (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                         COURT MASTER (NSH)




                                                                           4