By a 2:1 majority, the Supreme Court held that officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so confessions made to them cannot be used to convict. A statement recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as a confession at trial. Raj Kumar Karwal and Kanhaiyalal were overruled (paras 153, 155).
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rajesh Dhiman and Gulshan Rana for possessing 3.1 kg of charas found in a backpack, dismissing their appeals against the High Court's reversal of their acquittal. Following the Constitution Bench in Mukesh Singh, it held that a complainant who also investigates does not by that fact alone taint the case, called the claim that the bag belonged to a vanished stranger fanciful, and sent both back to custody (paras 10, 16, 22).
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal of an acquittal for possessing 13 kg of charas found in a gunny bag under a dhaba counter. The trial court's findings were contrary to the evidence and its view was not possible at all (paras 10-11). Section 50 applies only to personal search, and the accused at the counter was in conscious possession (paras 10-11). The 15-year sentence was reduced to ten years (para 13).
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man found with 20 kg of ganja on his motorcycle, although both independent panch witnesses turned hostile. The evidence of police witnesses found reliable and trustworthy can sustain a conviction; the law does not require it to be corroborated by independent witnesses (para 8). Failure to prove who owned the motorcycle, or to recover it later, does not vitiate the trial (para 11). The five-year sentence was not reduced (para 12).
A five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that an investigation is not vitiated merely because the informant or complainant police officer also investigated the case, and the accused is not entitled to acquittal on that ground alone (para 12). Bias or prejudice depends on the facts of each case and has to be established, not inferred (paras 11-12). The Bench overruled Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab and confined three earlier acquittals to their own facts (para 12).
A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that when a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is seized mixed with neutral substances, the weight of the whole mixture, not just the pure drug content, decides whether it is a small or commercial quantity. E. Micheal Raj was held not good law, and the 2009 notification adding Note 4 was upheld as clarificatory (paras 8.2, 9, 10).
The Supreme Court upheld Than Kunwar's conviction under Section 18 of the NDPS Act for carrying 6.3 kg of opium in a bag. Following Baljinder Singh, it held that Section 50 does not apply to a recovery from a bag even if the person was also searched, and, following Sahi Ram, that not producing the bulk contraband in court is not fatal where the seizure and the samples are otherwise proved (paras 21, 29-31).
The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's orders granting bail to two accused in hashish oil cases involving commercial quantities, because the High Court had not recorded the satisfaction that Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires. Reasonable grounds for believing an accused not guilty, it held, mean more than prima facie grounds, and bail to co-accused or a bare claim of false implication does not lift the Section 37 bar (paras 21-24, 26).
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under Section 18 of the NDPS Act for possessing 1 kg 750 grams of opium (paras 4, 17). The chain of evidence was complete although the officer who took the sealed case property to the Magistrate was not examined; the search in an ASP's presence complied with Section 50 although the ASP was never examined; and the absence of independent witnesses did not show false implication (paras 10-15).
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the personal search of an accused does not invalidate contraband recovered from a vehicle, where that recovery stands proved independently. Section 50 applies only to a personal search, not to a vehicle, container or premises. The Court held Dilip v. State of M.P. to be not correct, restored the conviction and reduced the sentence to ten years (paras 16-20).
The Supreme Court acquitted Vijay Pandey, sentenced to 15 years for possessing 10 kg of opium, because the prosecution never proved that the sample tested in the laboratory was the one seized from him. Failing to link the sample to the seizure, it held, is no different from not producing the contraband at all, and a laboratory report on its own is not conclusive proof (paras 5, 8, 10).
The Supreme Court held that the factors listed in Section 32B of the NDPS Act are not the only grounds for a sentence above the statutory minimum; courts may also weigh other relevant factors, such as the quantity of drugs. It upheld a sentence above the ten-year minimum for 609.6 g of heroin but, as the appellant was only a carrier, cut the High Court's 16 years to 12 (paras 15, 17, 22-23).