Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail of a man caught with 7 kg of opium. The High Court had mentioned Section 37 of the NDPS Act but ignored its conditions, and granted bail on a second application without any change in circumstances. Under Section 37 negation of bail is the rule, and a repeat application without changed circumstances amounts to an impermissible review (paras 6, 8-10).

The Supreme Court upheld an NDPS conviction for possessing 25 ampoules of Tidigesic, rejecting challenges under Sections 42, 50 and 57. Where information reached officers on patrol and immediate action was needed to catch the accused, not recording it first did not violate Section 42. Informing the accused orally of his Section 50 right is enough, and sending the FIR and records to the superior was substantial compliance with Section 57 (paras 7, 10, 12).

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held Section 32A of the NDPS Act unconstitutional to the extent that it bars appellate courts from suspending sentences: a right of appeal without that power "would be unjust, unfair and violative of Article 21" (paras 17, 25). The bar on executive suspension, remission and commutation was upheld and severed (paras 15, 26). Suspension remains subject to Section 37's conditions, and Section 32A does not bar parole (paras 10, 27, 29).

The Supreme Court set aside a ten-year NDPS sentence for possession of about 9 grams of charas because the police refused the accused's request to be searched before a Magistrate (paras 2, 6). Rejecting the State's plea that Section 50 does not apply when a gazetted officer searches, it held that the suspect's right "cannot be taken away, merely because the officer going to search happens to be a gazetted officer" (para 4).

A three-judge Supreme Court bench held that poppy husk falls within poppy straw under Section 2(xviii) of the NDPS Act, so possessing it is an offence under Section 15. Poppy straw covers all parts of the opium poppy except the seeds, and for Section 15 it does not matter whether the husk contains more than 0.2 per cent morphine. The appeals were dismissed (paras 14-16).

The Supreme Court restored the acquittal of an auto-rickshaw driver found carrying charas worth Rs 5.29 lakh in gunny bags. The police inspector acted on a tip-off without writing it down or informing his superior, which was total non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act; such action becomes suspect and prejudices the accused. The driver also rebutted the Section 35 presumption of culpable mental state (paras 13, 17, 21-23).

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that an empowered officer about to search a person on prior information must inform him of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Failure does not vitiate the trial, but renders the recovery suspect and vitiates a conviction resting only on contraband recovered from his person. Such contraband cannot by itself prove possession, and no Section 54 presumption can arise from an illegal search (paras 78, 93).

The Supreme Court upheld a heroin conviction, holding that the reliable oral evidence of the officer who conducted the search can establish compliance with Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act. T.P. Razak did not lay down a rule requiring independent or documentary support (paras 4-6). A confession recorded while the accused was in custody was not involuntary for that reason alone; his vague, belated retraction did not displace it, and a discrepancy in the sample's weight did not create a doubt (paras 7-8).

The Supreme Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act only requires the accused to be offered the option of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate; once he takes it, the searching officer, not the accused, chooses the nearest one conveniently available (para 2). Finding the construction plain, the Bench of Justices J.S. Verma and B.N. Kirpal declined to refer the question to a three-Judge Bench and dismissed the special leave petition (paras 3-4).

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that courts cannot presume, as an official act regularly performed, that the searching officer told the accused of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate (paras 9-10). Without evidence of that, possession is not established and the accused must be acquitted (para 10). The appellants' convictions for possessing charas were set aside (paras 13-15).

The Supreme Court set aside the NDPS conviction of a Kuwaiti national because, before he was searched, he was not given the option of a search before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate under Section 50 (paras 5, 10). Following Balbir Singh, it refused to reconsider that ruling and held that Pooran Mal does not allow contraband seized in an illegal search to establish unlawful possession (paras 6-9).

In this 1994 ruling the Supreme Court set out how the arrest and search safeguards of the NDPS Act work. An officer searching a person on prior information must tell him of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, and Section 50 is mandatory (paras 17, 21, 26). An arrest or search under the Act by an officer who is not empowered is illegal, while lapses under Sections 52 and 57 are tested for prejudice (paras 14, 25-26).