The Supreme Court upheld the proviso to Section 41(1) of the NDPS (Amendment) Act, 2001, which denies the amendment's lighter, quantity-based sentences to cases pending in appeal on 2 October 2001. Separating concluded trials from pending trials and investigations is a reasonable classification: applying the new Act to concluded trials could reopen them and defeat the aim of avoiding delay (paras 21-23). High Court rulings striking down the proviso were overruled (para 24).
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).
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).