Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Supreme Court upheld an NDPS conviction for possessing 1 kg of opium, rejecting the plea that the trial was vitiated because the complainant officer also investigated (paras 2, 9, 12). Distinguishing Megha Singh and Rajangam, it noted that the search was conducted in the presence of and under the instructions of a DSP, that the complainant was not alone in the investigation, and that the point had never been raised earlier (para 11).

The Supreme Court upheld a poppy husk conviction resting on one police witness, holding that where the non-examination of independent witnesses is satisfactorily explained, official witnesses whose evidence inspires confidence can found a conviction (paras 8, 10). Once physical possession was proved, Section 35 of the NDPS Act shifted to the driver the burden of proving he was not in conscious possession (para 12). The investigating officer's non-examination caused no prejudice; the sentence was cut from twelve to ten years (paras 16, 19-20).

The Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order granting bail on parity to a murder accused who was a history-sheeter, holding that "it was not a case of parity" and the order "clearly exposes the non-application of mind" (para 17). It explained that setting aside an unjustified grant of bail is different from cancelling bail for supervening circumstances (para 13).

A Constitution Bench held that registration of an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory when the information discloses a cognizable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is then permissible (para 111). A limited preliminary inquiry, completed within seven days, may be held only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, in categories such as matrimonial, commercial, medical negligence and corruption cases or after abnormal delay (para 111). Registration of an FIR and arrest are "two entirely different concepts" (para 98).

The Supreme Court reduced the 15-year sentences of two first offenders convicted of carrying 500 g of brown sugar to the 10-year statutory minimum, and cut the imprisonment in default of the Rs 1.5 lakh fine from three years to six months. Default imprisonment is a penalty, not a sentence, and courts must weigh the offender's means before ordering it; having served nearly 12 years, the appellants were to be released (paras 9, 12, 14-15).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail under Section 167(2) CrPC to a man from whose possession 1.500 kg of opium was recovered when two persons were apprehended on a motorcycle (paras 4, 6). The trial court had treated the recovery as commercial quantity, with 180 days to file the charge-sheet (para 2). Relying on Akhlak @ Vilasan and Smt. Anita Devi, the Court held that recovery from another person cannot be clubbed and that the limit was 60 days (paras 4-6).

The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted of carrying two kilograms of heroin because a consent memo that only asked him to choose between a Gazetted Officer and a Magistrate did not inform him of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (paras 9-10, 12). On confessions to Customs officers, the Bench chose to follow Noor Aga rather than Kanhaiyalal (para 11).

The Supreme Court acquitted a hotel servant convicted of possessing 2.1 kg of opium found in a room next to the hotel kitchen, holding that possession under Section 18 of the NDPS Act "has to be conscious" and that a servant does not possess his master's contraband unless it was left in his custody under his absolute control (paras 2, 15-16). His confessions to Central Bureau of Narcotics officers were held admissible and voluntary, but showed only that he was the owners' servant (paras 10, 13, 15).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a woman accused under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act from whom 200 grams of brown sugar was recovered, after the trial court had added 500 grams recovered from a co-accused and applied the 180-day charge-sheet period (paras 2, 5-6). Since each accused is sentenced for the quantity recovered from his or her own possession, the total could not be read against her, and the 60-day limit under Section 167(2) CrPC applied (paras 5-7).

The Rajasthan High Court acquitted two men convicted of keeping ganja, doda powder and opium, holding that when secret information is received at the police station, Section 42 of the NDPS Act requires it to be written down and sent to superior officers in writing; a wireless message suffices only for a patrolling party. With no proof of written transmission or of the Section 42(2) report, the trial was vitiated (paras 20-25).

The Supreme Court upheld a ten-year NDPS sentence for 1 kg 750 grams of opium recovered from a bag the appellant was carrying (paras 1, 12, 15). Section 50 applies only where the drug is recovered in a body search, not from a container carried by the accused (para 12). The absence of independent witnesses did not by itself show false implication, and a twelve-day delay in sending the sample was not fatal given the link evidence (paras 9-10, 14).

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that no individual "should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question", narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the BEAP test, whether in criminal investigation or otherwise (para 223). Compulsory tests violate the right against self-incrimination and personal liberty (paras 221-222). Voluntary tests are allowed with safeguards, but their results are not evidence; facts discovered through them may be proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (para 223).