By Arré Bench Sep. 30, 2020
The Narcotics Control Bureau wants to invoke Section 27A of the NDPS Act against actor Rhea Chakraborty. It deals with “financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders” and attracts a punishment of 10 to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.
The accusations in the Sushant Singh Rajput case has gone from murder to assisted suicide, to financial fraud, and now, drug abuse. Actress Rhea Chakraborty, who has been vilified by TV journalists and social media alike, has been booked under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
The invoking of section 27A has led to much controversy and debate in the legal sphere. Chakraborty’s lawyer Satish Maneshinde has argued that if Rajput were alive, he would be punished under Section 27 for consumption, which attracts a punishment of six months to one year. If the main beneficiary gets only that punishment, how can Rhea and her brother Showik, also arrested in the case, be charged under section 27A which attracts a punishment of 10 to 20 years?
If Sushant is alive today, he will be punished under Sec 27 for consumption, which attracts punishment of 6 months – 1 year. If the main beneficiary gets only that punishment, how can Rhea & Showik be charged with Sec 27A which attracts 10-20 yrs punishment: Rhea's lawyer. pic.twitter.com/bl7j0QYT4U
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 29, 2020
What is Section 27A of the NDPS Act? Section 27A of the NDPS Act deals with “financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders”. It attracts a punishment of 10 to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The submission by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh of the Narcotics Control Bureau was as follows: “If somebody known to me is consuming drugs… consumption is illegal… and I am not telling this to anyone… not disclosing it to police…then it can be brought under the definition of ‘harbouring.’”
When Justice Sarang Kotwal asked if alleged procurement of drugs can qualify as harbouring under Section 27A, Anil Singh responded by saying, “Such an act is giving protection or shelter to the drug consumer from arrest.”
Maneshinde refers to the definition of 'harbour' under the Indian Penal Code.#RheaChakraborty #SushantSinghRajput pic.twitter.com/RIfpRd2lDf
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 29, 2020
The claim was strongly refuted by the lawyers representing Rhea Chakraborty and the other accused. Advocate Satish Maneshinde and Taraq Sayed submitted that they cannot be said to have “harboured” Rajput since he was living in his own apartment. “NCB alleges Rhea harboured Sushant to invoke Section 27A. How does Rhea ‘harbour’ Sushant when he himself is his own house?” Maneshinde asked.
Maneshinde : NCB alleges Rhea harboured Sushant to invoke Section 27A. How does Rhea 'harbour' Sushant when he himself is his own house?#RheaChakraborty #SushantSinghRajput
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 29, 2020
Responding to ASG Anil Singh’s point, the advocates said that Rajput was not under the apprehension of being arrested at any point of time.
Maneshinde : At any point of time, Sushant was under no apprehension of arrest. There is no question of 'harbouring'.#RheaChakraborty #SushantSinghRajput
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 29, 2020
“Had Sushant Singh Rajput been alive today, he would have been punished under Section 20. Sushant would have then claimed the immunity of rehabilitation and got away with punishment for small quantities. If the beneficiary can only get smaller punishment, how can Rhea and Showik be punished under Section 27A?” asked Satish Maneshinde.
Singh on the behalf of the NCB submitted that both Rhea and Showik have admitted to making payments for the purchase of drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput, an activity that falls within the purchase, sale, and shipment of drugs. Singh stated that Section 27A applies since direct and indirect financing illicit trade is included in the section.
#NCB invokes Sec 27A against #RheaChakraborty for 'harbouring offender' and not informing the police that #SushantSinghRajput was consuming drugs. https://t.co/UwAHOrYFhC
— The Quint (@TheQuint) September 30, 2020
Members associated with the legal fraternity have questioned the wisdom of invoking Section 27A in the case. Lawyer Anirban Roy described it as the most “wild” and “absurd” application of the section.
Application of Section 27A NDPS to #Rhea (which deals with "Harbouring" & "Financing" Offenders) for having purchased drugs for #Sushant (Case of NCB) is possibly the most wild & absurd application of the Section.. And Addl SG Anil Singh defended it.https://t.co/2QT18dRKNS
— Anirban Roy (@AnirbanFromRLF) September 29, 2020
“Weren’t we calling her gold digger? But she was paying for his drugs!” pointed out journalist Arvind Gunasekar.
NCB argues that conduct of Rhea of not informing police about Sushant’s drug consumption attracts Sec 27A of NDPS Act.
She is also accused of paying for the drug purchases (financing).Weren’t we calling her gold digger ?
But she was paying for his drugs ! https://t.co/QIUyfzD7sc— Arvind Gunasekar (@arvindgunasekar) September 29, 2020
Advocate Hitendra Thakur stated that the actual drug peddlers who were apprehended and from whom foreign currency was seized have been charged with lesser offences. “The NCB says various drugs have been seized from one accused Anuj Keswani and therefore says that the matter involves commercial quantity. But Rhea or Showik have no direct relation with Keswani. Keswani’s only relation is with Kaizan Ebrahim who was released on bail on the first day on the consent of the NCB,” Maneshinde submitted.
Only Rhea and Showik are charged with illicit traffic whereas the actual drug paddlers who were apprehended and from whom foreign currency was seized at charged with lesser offences and are being prosecuted without Sec 27A. Shabby investigation by NCB. #RheaArrested
— Hitender Thakur (@advhitender) September 10, 2020
The Bombay High Court has reserved order on the bail pleas of Rhea Chakraborty, Showik Chakraborty and others. The legal battle and this witch-hunt are far from over.
Comments