The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has appealed to the High Court’s larger bench regarding the inconsistent interpretation of Offences and Penalties of the Tobacco Control (Amendment) Act 2014.
At present, there are two similar cases under appeal at the High Court.
According to the OAG, there is an inconsistent interpretation of the term ‘second time’ and ‘repeat’ offence.
In June this year, a bench of Thimphu District Court passed a judgement considering a second-time offence as a repeat offence.
However, in August last year, another bench of Thimphu District Court had considered a similar offence as the first time. This was because the offender was brought to court for the first time although he already had a record with the BNCA.
The OAG then appealed to the High Court against the judgment passed in 2017. But the High Court upheld the lower court’s judgment.
The OAG then further appealed to the larger bench of the High Court.
According to Section 51B (c) under the Tobacco Control (Amendment) Act 2014, states that any person who breaches section 11(d) for the ‘second time’ shall be punished with misdemeanour and pay a fine equivalent to ten times the value of the tobacco or tobacco products.
But in Dzongkha version of the Act, the ‘second time’ has been translated as the ‘repeat offence’ who should have at least a past criminal record with the court. But OAG says some courts do not consider an offender fined by the BNCA as a repeat offender.
The section 11 (d) of the act states ” no person in the country shall possess tobacco or tobacco products without proof of tax and duty payments or beyond the permissible quantity and type determined by Parliament.”
Meanwhile, the OAG says this kind of inconsistent interpretation hampers in enforcing the law.
