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).
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against a conviction for possessing 1.5 kg of charas (paras 1-2, 13). Section 42 did not apply because the appellant was intercepted on a road, a public place governed by Section 43 (paras 7-8). Because his trousers were searched as well as his bag, Section 50 was attracted although the charas was in the bag, and it had been strictly complied with (paras 11-12).
The Supreme Court restored the acquittal of Mohinder Singh, whom the High Court had convicted of carrying 7 kg 40 g of opium. With no Magistrate's order on record showing that the seized contraband was produced before him, and no malkhana register entry, oral police evidence could not prove the seizure, and the High Court had no ground to reverse the acquittal (paras 10-16).
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man from whom about 2.5 kg of charas had been recovered, because the search was not made in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer (paras 8, 28, 30-31). He had been told of his right but consented in writing to be searched by the raiding police party; the Court held that this did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as laid down in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (paras 7-8, 26-28).
The Supreme Court upheld the refusal of anticipatory bail to Satpal Singh in a commercial-quantity NDPS case and set aside the anticipatory bail granted to two co-accused, because the High Court had not applied Section 37. Parity with co-accused is no ground where Section 37 was ignored, and anticipatory bail does not carry over into regular bail once the charge-sheet is filed (paras 2, 14-16).
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court acquittal of two accused found in a car with about 18.85 kg of cannabis mixture and restored their conviction under Section 20 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act (para 7). Examining independent witnesses is "not an indispensable requirement", and a case-property parcel produced torn in court did not create doubt where no tampering was suggested to the witnesses and the chemical examiner noticed nothing doubtful (para 6).
The Supreme Court granted bail to a man in judicial custody since April 2017 in a cheating case, holding that the trial judge and the High Court ought to have granted it because he was never arrested during seven months of investigation (paras 12, 17-18). Restating that "the grant of bail is the general rule" (para 2), the Court said that where the investigating officer did not arrest an accused, "a strong case should be made out" for judicial custody after the charge sheet (para 4).
The Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal against the Bombay High Court's acquittal of a foreign national found with 12.03 kg of hashish in a suitcase at Mumbai airport. The two panch witnesses said the bag was already open when they arrived and that they signed papers without reading them, and a retracted Section 67 statement and the officer's word alone could not sustain a conviction (paras 10-14).
The Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal against a Madhya Pradesh High Court acquittal in a 7.2 kg opium case (para 13). After samples were drawn, the Executive Magistrate handed the bulk back to the investigating officer, and it was never produced at trial; any destruction needed a Magistrate's order under Section 52A, which was never sought (paras 8-11). With hostile independent witnesses and a Section 67 statement recorded in custody, the acquittal stood (paras 12-13).
The Supreme Court acquitted a man serving 15 years for possessing 59 kg of ganja because neither the seized ganja nor its sample was ever produced in court, the independent witnesses had turned hostile, and the prosecution gave no explanation (paras 5, 7-8). A forensic report alone could not confirm the seizure or that the substance was ganja, and police testimony alone was not safe (paras 7-8).
A nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy "is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution" (Order of the Court, para 2). M P Sharma, and Kharak Singh to that extent, were overruled. The plurality judgment added that privacy is not absolute: an intrusion needs a law, a legitimate aim and proportionality.
Hearing bail pleas of prisoners held for years, including NDPS accused in custody since 2013, the Supreme Court directed that the pending trial and appeal be decided within six months. It then set norms for all High Courts: bail applications decided within a week in subordinate courts, sessions trials of persons in custody within two years, and release on personal bond of undertrials held longer than their likely sentence (paras 7, 20, 27).