Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

The Supreme Court upheld the refusal of anticipatory bail to Satpal Singh in a commercial-quantity NDPS case and set aside the anticipatory bail granted to two co-accused, because the High Court had not applied Section 37. Parity with co-accused is no ground where Section 37 was ignored, and anticipatory bail does not carry over into regular bail once the charge-sheet is filed (paras 2, 14-16).

The Supreme Court set aside a High Court acquittal of two accused found in a car with about 18.85 kg of cannabis mixture and restored their conviction under Section 20 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act (para 7). Examining independent witnesses is "not an indispensable requirement", and a case-property parcel produced torn in court did not create doubt where no tampering was suggested to the witnesses and the chemical examiner noticed nothing doubtful (para 6).

The Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal against the Bombay High Court's acquittal of a foreign national found with 12.03 kg of hashish in a suitcase at Mumbai airport. The two panch witnesses said the bag was already open when they arrived and that they signed papers without reading them, and a retracted Section 67 statement and the officer's word alone could not sustain a conviction (paras 10-14).

The Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal against a Madhya Pradesh High Court acquittal in a 7.2 kg opium case (para 13). After samples were drawn, the Executive Magistrate handed the bulk back to the investigating officer, and it was never produced at trial; any destruction needed a Magistrate's order under Section 52A, which was never sought (paras 8-11). With hostile independent witnesses and a Section 67 statement recorded in custody, the acquittal stood (paras 12-13).

The Supreme Court acquitted a man serving 15 years for possessing 59 kg of ganja because neither the seized ganja nor its sample was ever produced in court, the independent witnesses had turned hostile, and the prosecution gave no explanation (paras 5, 7-8). A forensic report alone could not confirm the seizure or that the substance was ganja, and police testimony alone was not safe (paras 7-8).

Hearing bail pleas of prisoners held for years, including NDPS accused in custody since 2013, the Supreme Court directed that the pending trial and appeal be decided within six months. It then set norms for all High Courts: bail applications decided within a week in subordinate courts, sessions trials of persons in custody within two years, and release on personal bond of undertrials held longer than their likely sentence (paras 7, 20, 27).

Finding that only 16% of drugs seized between 2002 and 2012 had been disposed of, the Supreme Court issued nationwide directions on the sampling, storage and disposal of seized narcotics. Under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, samples must be drawn in the presence and under the supervision of a Magistrate, who certifies them. Governments were directed to set up secure storage within six months, and stocks in concluded cases were ordered destroyed (paras 13, 15, 19-20).

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 NDPS conviction because the officer who raided the accused's house on secret information never recorded that information or reported it to his superior under Section 42. The State argued that the FIR, sent to the Superintendent of Police the same day, was enough. The Court held that the Section 42 procedure is separate from the Code of Criminal Procedure, and compliance with one does not show compliance with the other (paras 11, 13).

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of two men from whom 9.6 kg of opium was recovered, holding that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was breached. A joint written notice, signed by one accused for both, is not a valid communication of the right; each person must be told individually. Offering a third option of search before a superintendent of the raiding party was also improper. Because both the bag and the persons were searched, Section 50 applied (paras 12, 14-15).

Doubting Kanhaiyalal and Raj Kumar Karwal, a two-judge Bench referred to a larger Bench whether an NDPS investigating officer is a police officer and whether a Section 67 statement can be treated as a confession (paras 28-29, 38-40). The NDPS Act "is purely penal in nature" (para 32). The appellant's further sentence was suspended and bail granted pending the reference (para 43).