Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

The Supreme Court set aside bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to an accused found travelling from Dimapur towards Rampur in a car with 3.3 kg of morphine hidden near its wiper. That nothing was recovered from his person, and that the translator's endorsement on his Section 67 statement named a co-accused, did not meet the Section 37 test of reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty (paras 21, 25, 30-32).

The Supreme Court acquitted three men convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act after 75 kg of poppy straw was found in a private jeep on a public road. A private vehicle is not a public place under the Explanation to Section 43, so Section 42 applied; the officer admittedly never recorded the secret information in writing, and total non-compliance with Section 42 is impermissible (paras 12-15).

The Supreme Court upheld a 15-year sentence for possession of 1 kg of heroin, four times the minimum commercial quantity, though the NDPS Act's minimum is ten years. Section 32B lets courts weigh such factors as they deem fit beyond clauses (a) to (f), and the quantity of drugs is one; being poor, a carrier or the sole breadwinner is no ground for leniency in NDPS sentencing (paras 6, 7).

The Supreme Court cancelled bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to a company director accused of diverting acetic anhydride, a controlled substance, as part of an alleged international drug syndicate. The High Court merely recorded the submissions, never applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and relied on the extraneous ground that the accused was educated and so "may not commit any offence" (paras 11-13).

The Supreme Court granted bail to actress Ragini Dwivedi, jailed since September 2020 in Bengaluru's alleged drug-party case. No drugs were found at her home and the case rested on another person's statement; at most an offence of consuming drugs under Section 27 was made out, so the courts below wrongly applied the Section 37 bar on bail (paras 6-8).

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).

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man found with 20 kg of ganja on his motorcycle, although both independent panch witnesses turned hostile. The evidence of police witnesses found reliable and trustworthy can sustain a conviction; the law does not require it to be corroborated by independent witnesses (para 8). Failure to prove who owned the motorcycle, or to recover it later, does not vitiate the trial (para 11). The five-year sentence was not reduced (para 12).

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).

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that when a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is seized mixed with neutral substances, the weight of the whole mixture, not just the pure drug content, decides whether it is a small or commercial quantity. E. Micheal Raj was held not good law, and the 2009 notification adding Note 4 was upheld as clarificatory (paras 8.2, 9, 10).

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).