Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

The Rajasthan High Court faulted a trial court for refusing to summon the call details of the Seizure Officer and other police officials in an NDPS trial, where the accused claimed they were not at the place of seizure on the date and time alleged. Summoning them was imperative for a fair trial (para 4). All courts in Rajasthan were directed to decide such applications forthwith, as service providers delete records after one year (para 6).

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).

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under Section 18 of the NDPS Act for possessing 1 kg 750 grams of opium (paras 4, 17). The chain of evidence was complete although the officer who took the sealed case property to the Magistrate was not examined; the search in an ASP's presence complied with Section 50 although the ASP was never examined; and the absence of independent witnesses did not show false implication (paras 10-15).

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).

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the personal search of an accused does not invalidate contraband recovered from a vehicle, where that recovery stands proved independently. Section 50 applies only to a personal search, not to a vehicle, container or premises. The Court held Dilip v. State of M.P. to be not correct, restored the conviction and reduced the sentence to ten years (paras 16-20).

The Supreme Court acquitted Vijay Pandey, sentenced to 15 years for possessing 10 kg of opium, because the prosecution never proved that the sample tested in the laboratory was the one seized from him. Failing to link the sample to the seizure, it held, is no different from not producing the contraband at all, and a laboratory report on its own is not conclusive proof (paras 5, 8, 10).

The Supreme Court held that the factors listed in Section 32B of the NDPS Act are not the only grounds for a sentence above the statutory minimum; courts may also weigh other relevant factors, such as the quantity of drugs. It upheld a sentence above the ten-year minimum for 609.6 g of heroin but, as the appellant was only a carrier, cut the High Court's 16 years to 12 (paras 15, 17, 22-23).

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).

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against a conviction for possessing 1.5 kg of charas (paras 1-2, 13). Section 42 did not apply because the appellant was intercepted on a road, a public place governed by Section 43 (paras 7-8). Because his trousers were searched as well as his bag, Section 50 was attracted although the charas was in the bag, and it had been strictly complied with (paras 11-12).

The Supreme Court restored the acquittal of Mohinder Singh, whom the High Court had convicted of carrying 7 kg 40 g of opium. With no Magistrate's order on record showing that the seized contraband was produced before him, and no malkhana register entry, oral police evidence could not prove the seizure, and the High Court had no ground to reverse the acquittal (paras 10-16).

The Rajasthan High Court set aside an order framing charges under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(C) and 8/25 of the NDPS Act against a car's registered owner (paras 2, 8). The order gave no reason why both the 12 kg of ganja held by the co-accused and the 14 kg in the boot were his conscious possession, so the commercial-quantity charge could not stand (para 6). As he was himself driving, a Section 25 charge was unjustified (para 7).

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man from whom about 2.5 kg of charas had been recovered, because the search was not made in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer (paras 8, 28, 30-31). He had been told of his right but consented in writing to be searched by the raiding police party; the Court held that this did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as laid down in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (paras 7-8, 26-28).