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).
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 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 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 Rajasthan High Court held that possession of charas below 100 grams, a small quantity punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act with up to six months' imprisonment, is not triable by the Special Court, because Section 36A(1)(a) gives that Court only offences punishable with more than three years (paras 8-9). Quantities recovered separately from two accused on one motorcycle could not be added up (para 9). The case was sent to a Judicial Magistrate First Class (para 11).