NDPS Act Applies to Bulk Pharma Drugs: SC in Rakesh Kumar

Unlicensed Bulk Pharma Drugs: Supreme Court Says NDPS Act Applies Alongside Drugs and Cosmetics Act

Published: 16 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that suspended the sentences of convicts in 25 cases involving codeine syrups, diphenoxylate tablets and similar manufactured drugs, on the view that such cases belonged under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Under Section 80, it held, the NDPS Act applies in addition to that Act, and unlicensed bulk possession is prima facie a violation of Section 8 (paras 14-18).

Key holdings

The NDPS Act operates in addition to, not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (para 14).

Unlicensed bulk possession of manufactured drugs such as codeine syrups is prima facie a violation of Section 8 of the NDPS Act (paras 11, 15).

Choosing the law under which to prosecute is the prerogative of the State (para 15).

While deciding suspension of sentence, the High Court should not make observations on the merits of the pending appeal (para 16).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

In 25 cases the respondents were convicted under Section 21 or 22 of the NDPS Act for possessing manufactured drugs such as codeine cough syrups and diphenoxylate or alprazolam tablets, mostly with 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh (para 3). Pending their appeals, the High Court on 29.01.2018 suspended their sentences and released them on bail, observing that manufactured drugs made by a manufacturer must be tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, except those in loose form such as powder or liquid (paras 2, 4). The State appealed (para 4).

Court's Findings

The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 aims to prevent sub-standard and spurious drugs, while the NDPS Act is a special law to curb drugs used for intoxication (para 8). Section 8 bars dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner the Act and rules provide, and Sections 21 and 22 punish commercial quantities with 10 to 20 years (paras 9-10). Following Sanjeev V. Deshpande, even dealing for a medical purpose must comply with the Act and rules, and the NDPS Act operates in addition to the 1940 Act (paras 11, 14). Section 80 expressly says the NDPS Act is not in derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (para 14). Prosecution is the State's prerogative, and unlicensed bulk possession was prima facie a violation of Section 8 (paras 11, 15). The High Court's view did not hold good in law, and in deciding suspension applications it had wrongly made observations on the merits of the pending appeals (para 16). Given the gravity of the offences, suspension and bail were unsustainable (para 17).

Legal Principle

Unauthorised bulk possession of manufactured drugs containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances can be prosecuted under the NDPS Act, which by Section 80 applies in addition to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. A court deciding suspension of sentence should not pronounce on the merits of the pending appeal (paras 14-16).

Precedents Relied Upon

Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) 13 SCC 1
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5, 11, 14, 15
Dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is permissible only for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner provided by the Act and rules; the NDPS Act is a special law that operates in addition to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Chimanlal Jagjivandas Sheth v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 665
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was enacted to prevent sub-standard drugs and maintain high standards of medical treatment.

Statutory Provisions