Section 8

The Supreme Court acquitted three men convicted of carrying about 80 kg of ganja in Hyderabad. The weight included unseparated green chillies, three samples reached the laboratory although one of three had been given to the accused, the ganja was repacked into unsealed bags, and no Section 52A sampling was done, so the FSL report was worthless. Two appellants were convicted only on co-accused's interrogation notes (paras 19-25).

The Rajasthan High Court refused bail under Section 439 CrPC to a petitioner accused of supplying opium in an NCB case in which 33 kg was recovered (paras 8, 12-13). It found him involved in at least three more narcotics cases, held that he had grossly misused the liberty of earlier bail, and noted that he did not surrender on time after his bail was cancelled (paras 8, 10). A person repeatedly involved in drug trafficking can be called a habitual offender (para 11).

Applying Tofan Singh, the Supreme Court acquitted Balwinder Singh, whose conviction for possessing about 4 kg of heroin rested only on his own and a co-accused's Section 67 statements to NCB officers; without them, the link to the offence snapped (paras 11-13). But it upheld the conviction of the driver, Satnam Singh, because the recovery from the car he owned and drove was proved by an independent witness, NCB officers and the chemical report (paras 14, 17-19, 27).

The Rajasthan High Court granted regular bail, on a third application, to an accused charged under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act over 310 grams of smack (paras 1, 3, 11). The seizure procedure, as seen from the challan papers, prima facie did not show compliance with Section 50 in its true spirit (para 7). With investigation complete, the challan filed and the investigating officer examined, the Court took the Section 37 conditions to be satisfied (paras 7-8).

The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted of supplying poppy straw, holding that Section 52A of the NDPS Act is a mandatory rule of evidence: inventories, photographs and samples count as primary evidence only when certified by a Magistrate. The seized material was never produced, no Magistrate's order existed, panch witnesses turned hostile, and a police witness said the contraband was at the station before the raid (paras 5-14).

The Rajasthan High Court cancelled bail granted by a Special Judge to the alleged central figure in a tramadol and alprazolam racket. The Special Judge had treated the seized psychotropic substances as medicines, ignored commercial quantity and recorded no Section 37 satisfaction; after bail, two investigating officers were transferred or prosecuted, so tampering with the investigation could not be ruled out (paras 18-19, 24-27).

The Supreme Court acquitted two men convicted of a 5.067 kg heroin seizure. Following Tofan Singh, their confessional statements to an NCB officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act were barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act (paras 11-12). Samples drawn at the time of seizure, contrary to Mohanlal, cast serious doubt on whether the substance was contraband, and possession was not proved (paras 16-18).

The Rajasthan High Court quashed a 1990 conviction for 8.5 kg of opium, holding that police who set out to search a shop and house needed a warrant or recorded grounds under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, even though the accused was caught on the road outside. The Court found the recovery proved and Section 50 complied with, but the Section 42 breach made the search void (paras 32, 48, 53-61).

The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's grant of post-arrest bail to an accused in an NDPS case in which large quantities of psychotropic tablets were seized (paras 2, 5, 19). Section 67 confessions had to be kept aside after Tofan Singh, but the respondent's disclosures leading to a large recovery and call records linking the accused should have dissuaded the High Court (paras 16-17). Custody length or a filed charge-sheet is not by itself a ground for bail under Section 37 (para 18).

In the Narcotics Control Bureau's pending appeal, the Rajasthan High Court allowed its application to dispose of a car seized in 2012 under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Section 52A is an interim measure of disposal, not confiscation, and does not prejudice the owner's rights under Sections 60 to 63; the proceeds stay with the NCB as custodian, and the 2015 notification applies to the earlier seizure (paras 15-18).

The Supreme Court refused to cancel the bail of five NDPS accused whose arrests rested essentially on statements of themselves and co-accused under Section 67, which Tofan Singh makes inadmissible at trial; call records were left for trial (paras 9-10). But it cancelled the bail of one accused from whose rented flat commercial quantities were recovered, holding that he could not claim parity in the face of Section 37 (para 11).

The Supreme Court upheld a conviction for possessing 900 grams of smack found beneath the seat of a motorcycle stopped by a police patrol (paras 2-4, 19). It held that the seizure was "a chance recovery on a public road" governed by Section 43 of the NDPS Act, that Section 50 applies to a personal search and not to a vehicle, and that ownership of the motorcycle and non-production of the contraband did not help the accused (paras 11-15).