Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, decided on 29 October 2020, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court answered a reference on how far an accused's own words to NDPS officers can be used against him. By a 2:1 majority, Justices R.F. Nariman and Navin Sinha held that officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so a confession made to them cannot ground a conviction, and that a statement recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as a confession at trial. Raj Kumar Karwal and Kanhaiyalal were overruled (paras 153, 155). Justice Indira Banerjee dissented.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rajesh Dhiman and Gulshan Rana for possessing 3.1 kg of charas found in a backpack, dismissing their appeals against the High Court's reversal of their acquittal. Following the Constitution Bench in Mukesh Singh, it held that a complainant who also investigates does not by that fact alone taint the case, called the claim that the bag belonged to a vanished stranger fanciful, and sent both back to custody (paras 10, 16, 22).

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal of an acquittal for possessing 13 kg of charas found in a gunny bag under a dhaba counter. The trial court's findings were contrary to the evidence and its view was not possible at all (paras 10-11). Section 50 applies only to personal search, and the accused at the counter was in conscious possession (paras 10-11). The 15-year sentence was reduced to ten years (para 13).

A five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that an investigation is not vitiated merely because the informant or complainant police officer also investigated the case, and the accused is not entitled to acquittal on that ground alone (para 12). Bias or prejudice depends on the facts of each case and has to be established, not inferred (paras 11-12). The Bench overruled Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab and confined three earlier acquittals to their own facts (para 12).

The Supreme Court upheld Than Kunwar's conviction under Section 18 of the NDPS Act for carrying 6.3 kg of opium in a bag. Following Baljinder Singh, it held that Section 50 does not apply to a recovery from a bag even if the person was also searched, and, following Sahi Ram, that not producing the bulk contraband in court is not fatal where the seizure and the samples are otherwise proved (paras 21, 29-31).

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed three revision petitions against a Special Court's order of 21.01.2019 taking cognizance under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA in a mines bribery case, and seven Section 482 petitions against the refusal to convert the accused's arrest warrants into bailable warrants (opening paragraph, paras 2, 48, 63). A person accused of money laundering need not have committed the scheduled offence (para 44), and the 2019 Explanation to Section 3 is clarificatory (para 41).

The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's orders granting bail to two accused in hashish oil cases involving commercial quantities, because the High Court had not recorded the satisfaction that Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires. Reasonable grounds for believing an accused not guilty, it held, mean more than prima facie grounds, and bail to co-accused or a bare claim of false implication does not lift the Section 37 bar (paras 21-24, 26).

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a 1999 conviction for carrying 250 grams of opium, holding that a notice which merely conveyed that the accused could be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate did not apprise him of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution also never exhibited the seized opium or the sample, leaving the seizure itself unproved (paras 7-11).

The Supreme Court set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that suspended the sentences of convicts in 25 cases involving codeine syrups, diphenoxylate tablets and similar manufactured drugs, on the view that such cases belonged under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Under Section 80, it held, the NDPS Act applies in addition to that Act, and unlicensed bulk possession is prima facie a violation of Section 8 (paras 14-18).

The Supreme Court upheld the refusal of anticipatory bail to Satpal Singh in a commercial-quantity NDPS case and set aside the anticipatory bail granted to two co-accused, because the High Court had not applied Section 37. Parity with co-accused is no ground where Section 37 was ignored, and anticipatory bail does not carry over into regular bail once the charge-sheet is filed (paras 2, 14-16).

The Supreme Court granted bail to a man in judicial custody since April 2017 in a cheating case, holding that the trial judge and the High Court ought to have granted it because he was never arrested during seven months of investigation (paras 12, 17-18). Restating that "the grant of bail is the general rule" (para 2), the Court said that where the investigating officer did not arrest an accused, "a strong case should be made out" for judicial custody after the charge sheet (para 4).

Hearing bail pleas of prisoners held for years, including NDPS accused in custody since 2013, the Supreme Court directed that the pending trial and appeal be decided within six months. It then set norms for all High Courts: bail applications decided within a week in subordinate courts, sessions trials of persons in custody within two years, and release on personal bond of undertrials held longer than their likely sentence (paras 7, 20, 27).