Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

The Supreme Court refused bail to men caught transporting 449 cartons of Phensedyl and Recodex cough syrup, concealed with household goods and carried without documents. The exemption for codeine preparations measured per dose applies only to therapeutic use; with nothing to show where the bulk consignment was going, the whole codeine content of each bottle counted, attracting the NDPS Act (paras 10-13).

The Supreme Court reduced the 15-year sentences of two first offenders convicted of carrying 500 g of brown sugar to the 10-year statutory minimum, and cut the imprisonment in default of the Rs 1.5 lakh fine from three years to six months. Default imprisonment is a penalty, not a sentence, and courts must weigh the offender's means before ordering it; having served nearly 12 years, the appellants were to be released (paras 9, 12, 14-15).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail under Section 167(2) CrPC to a man from whose possession 1.500 kg of opium was recovered when two persons were apprehended on a motorcycle (paras 4, 6). The trial court had treated the recovery as commercial quantity, with 180 days to file the charge-sheet (para 2). Relying on Akhlak @ Vilasan and Smt. Anita Devi, the Court held that recovery from another person cannot be clubbed and that the limit was 60 days (paras 4-6).

The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted of carrying two kilograms of heroin because a consent memo that only asked him to choose between a Gazetted Officer and a Magistrate did not inform him of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (paras 9-10, 12). On confessions to Customs officers, the Bench chose to follow Noor Aga rather than Kanhaiyalal (para 11).

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of a man found with 16 grams of smack in 1998, because the written Section 50 notice only told him that a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate ‘could be arranged’, not that he had a right to be searched before one (paras 20-22). It rejected the State's argument that a recovery made in breach of Section 50 can still be proved through police or independent witnesses (paras 23-25, 28).

The Supreme Court acquitted a hotel servant convicted of possessing 2.1 kg of opium found in a room next to the hotel kitchen, holding that possession under Section 18 of the NDPS Act "has to be conscious" and that a servant does not possess his master's contraband unless it was left in his custody under his absolute control (paras 2, 15-16). His confessions to Central Bureau of Narcotics officers were held admissible and voluntary, but showed only that he was the owners' servant (paras 10, 13, 15).

The Supreme Court acquitted a cinema-hall owner convicted of possessing 175 grams of smack, because the seized powder was never produced at trial and nobody explained where the samples and the bulk were kept before they reached the laboratory and the Malkhana (paras 10-12, 15). Following Jitendra, it held there was "no evidence to connect the forensic report with the substance that was seized" (para 12), and extended the acquittal to two co-accused who had not appealed (para 16).

In a State appeal against acquittal in an 8 kg opium case, the Supreme Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act did not apply because the opium was carried in a bag on the head (State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar). It nonetheless upheld the acquittal: the prosecution could not show where the samples were between their removal from the Malkhana on 26 February and their receipt at the laboratory on 9 March, so their sanctity was compromised (para 2).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a woman accused under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act from whom 200 grams of brown sugar was recovered, after the trial court had added 500 grams recovered from a co-accused and applied the 180-day charge-sheet period (paras 2, 5-6). Since each accused is sentenced for the quantity recovered from his or her own possession, the total could not be read against her, and the 60-day limit under Section 167(2) CrPC applied (paras 5-7).

The Rajasthan High Court acquitted two men convicted of keeping ganja, doda powder and opium, holding that when secret information is received at the police station, Section 42 of the NDPS Act requires it to be written down and sent to superior officers in writing; a wireless message suffices only for a patrolling party. With no proof of written transmission or of the Section 42(2) report, the trial was vitiated (paras 20-25).

The Supreme Court upheld a ten-year NDPS sentence for 1 kg 750 grams of opium recovered from a bag the appellant was carrying (paras 1, 12, 15). Section 50 applies only where the drug is recovered in a body search, not from a container carried by the accused (para 12). The absence of independent witnesses did not by itself show false implication, and a twelve-day delay in sending the sample was not fatal given the link evidence (paras 9-10, 14).

The Supreme Court acquitted the co-owner of a truck caught carrying poppy husk, holding that Section 25 of the NDPS Act needs evidence that the owner knowingly permitted the vehicle's misuse, and that the presumption of a culpable mental state under Section 35 arises only after the prosecution proves that knowledge (paras 9-10). His giving a wrong address when registering the truck could not fasten him with knowledge of its misuse (para 10).