Section 8

In this 2008 ruling the Supreme Court upheld an NDPS conviction resting on the accused's own statement under Section 67, holding that such a statement to an empowered officer can be used as a confession against its maker and is outside Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act (paras 38, 40). Following Raj Kumar Karwal, it treated these officers as not police officers (paras 37-38). The ruling was later overruled by a majority of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020).

The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court's acquittal of a man convicted under the NDPS Act, because the officer who received the secret information never reduced it to writing as Section 42 requires (paras 5, 19, 25). Although a hotel is a public place under Section 43, the Court said a room occupied by a guest may not be, and that the guest "is entitled to his right of privacy" (para 14).

The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment that had reversed an acquittal for carrying opium on a scooter. Section 50 may not apply to a vehicle search, but because the accused were also searched personally, the officer had to comply with it and did not (para 17). In 2019 a three-Judge Bench in State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh held this decision ‘not correct’ for extending that benefit to the vehicle recovery.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a woman found with 600 grams of heroin in a 1994 roadside search, and the acquittal of two men alleged to have supplied it (paras 6, 27-30). Section 50 prescribes no specific form: the suspect need only be made aware of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate (paras 21, 23). Section 42 covers a building, conveyance or enclosed place, while Section 43 covers public places (para 15).

The Supreme Court acquitted a farmer convicted under the NDPS Act after 17 ganja plants were found in a field. To prove cultivation there must be supporting evidence that the accused grew the plants; a few plants on the land are not enough, since plants may sprout naturally. Nothing showed the field was his alone or that he cultivated them (paras 4, 6-7).

The Supreme Court acquitted a man and his mother convicted of possessing charas and ganja because the seized drugs were never produced at trial, the panch witnesses turned hostile and the Investigating Officer was not examined (paras 5-6, 9). "The best evidence would have been the seized materials which ought to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects" (para 6). A final report saying the laboratory report was awaited, filed after that report's date, added to the doubt (para 8).

The Supreme Court upheld a heroin conviction, holding that the reliable oral evidence of the officer who conducted the search can establish compliance with Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act. T.P. Razak did not lay down a rule requiring independent or documentary support (paras 4-6). A confession recorded while the accused was in custody was not involuntary for that reason alone; his vague, belated retraction did not displace it, and a discrepancy in the sample's weight did not create a doubt (paras 7-8).