Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

The Supreme Court upheld a charas conviction from Bharuch, rejecting the plea that Section 42 of the NDPS Act was breached. The information reached the police officer while he was investigating another NDPS case, so Section 42 need not be followed in all cases; even so, he had written it down and sent it to his superiors. The plea that he was not an empowered officer was raised too late (paras 11-14).

The Supreme Court upheld a conviction for possessing 7 kg of opium, holding that the inspector who made the recovery "was rightly made the Investigating Officer in the case" and that bias depends on the facts (para 14). A delay of about 40 days in sending samples caused no prejudice as the seals stayed intact (para 12), and the Section 55 objection failed for want of prejudice (para 13).

The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's acquittal of a man found with 309 kg of poppy straw and restored his conviction (para 17). Opium and poppy straw are distinct under the NDPS Act, so linking the seizure to his father's opium licence had no foundation, and his Section 67 statement had never been retracted (paras 6-7, 10, 16). Through M. Prabhulal, the Court noted that a Gazetted Officer acting under Section 41 need not comply with Section 42 (para 13).

The Supreme Court upheld Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, which reverse the burden of proof, but held that the presumption arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts, including possession, beyond reasonable doubt (paras 84, 88-89). It set aside an Afghan airline crew member's conviction for 1.4 kg of heroin: the carton, bulk and samples were never produced, the bulk was destroyed without a Section 52A order, and the customs confession could not alone sustain a conviction (paras 170-171).

In this 2008 ruling the Supreme Court held that when a narcotic drug is mixed with neutral substances, only the actual content of the drug decides whether it is a small or commercial quantity for punishment (paras 13, 16). A heroin carrier caught with 4.07 kg of powder of 1.4-1.6% purity held about 60 gms of heroin, an intermediate quantity under Section 21(b), and his ten-year sentence was cut to six years (paras 3-4, 17-19). The three-Judge Bench in Hira Singh (2020) later held this view not good law.

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 State challenged the Delhi High Court's use of Section 41 of the NDPS Amendment Act, 2001 to cut a ten-year minimum sentence for 45 kg of poppy straw powder to the period served, since the proviso excludes cases pending in appeal. The Supreme Court did not decide the point. As the respondent had been in custody for about ten years, it disposed of the appeals, directed his release and left the question open (paras 10, 13-14).

The Supreme Court restored the NDPS conviction of a man from whose scooter 700 grams of opium was recovered, holding that Section 42 does not apply when a police officer on patrol stops and searches a vehicle in transit in a public place (paras 2, 7-9). Following Jarnail Singh, such a seizure falls under Section 43, which has no proviso requiring recorded grounds (para 8). "Section 42 has no application to the facts of the case" (para 9).

The Supreme Court set aside a Rajasthan High Court acquittal that rested only on non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Read plainly, the word person in Section 50 does not cover a bag or other article carried by the accused, so Section 50 had no application. As the High Court had not examined the other grounds, the appeal was remitted for a fresh hearing on them (paras 3, 9, 13).

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 restored a charas conviction that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had set aside for non-compliance with Section 50. The 2 kg of charas was found in a plastic bag, and under Pawan Kumar Section 50 applies only to a personal search. The remark in Namdi Francis Nwazor that a handbag search is a search of the person was obiter, not binding (paras 3, 8, 17-18).