The Supreme Court upheld a charas conviction from Bharuch, rejecting the plea that Section 42 of the NDPS Act was breached. The information reached the police officer while he was investigating another NDPS case, so Section 42 need not be followed in all cases; even so, he had written it down and sent it to his superiors. The plea that he was not an empowered officer was raised too late (paras 11-14).
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of a man accused of smuggling antique idols abroad against the Rajasthan High Court's refusal of bail (paras 1, 20). It explained that "the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal" (para 16), that Section 439 requires the applicant to be in custody, and that bail courts consider only a prima facie case (paras 10, 19).
The Supreme Court upheld a conviction for possessing 7 kg of opium, holding that the inspector who made the recovery "was rightly made the Investigating Officer in the case" and that bias depends on the facts (para 14). A delay of about 40 days in sending samples caused no prejudice as the seals stayed intact (para 12), and the Section 55 objection failed for want of prejudice (para 13).
The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's acquittal of a man found with 309 kg of poppy straw and restored his conviction (para 17). Opium and poppy straw are distinct under the NDPS Act, so linking the seizure to his father's opium licence had no foundation, and his Section 67 statement had never been retracted (paras 6-7, 10, 16). Through M. Prabhulal, the Court noted that a Gazetted Officer acting under Section 41 need not comply with Section 42 (para 13).
The Supreme Court upheld Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, which reverse the burden of proof, but held that the presumption arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts, including possession, beyond reasonable doubt (paras 84, 88-89). It set aside an Afghan airline crew member's conviction for 1.4 kg of heroin: the carton, bulk and samples were never produced, the bulk was destroyed without a Section 52A order, and the customs confession could not alone sustain a conviction (paras 170-171).
The Supreme Court dismissed a bus driver's appeal against his sentence for causing a child's death by rash and negligent driving, holding that six months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A IPC was not shocking (paras 2, 11, 14). Relying on Dalbir Singh, it reiterated that deterrence is a prime consideration in sentencing for such offences and that the benevolent provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act should not be extended to them (para 12).
The Supreme Court rejected an exporter's challenge to Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, which presume that an exporter who has not realised export proceeds within the prescribed period failed to take reasonable steps (paras 10, 12). It held that "A legal provision does not become unconstitutional only because it provides for a reverse burden" (para 16), and refused to interfere with the rejection of the exporters' discharge application (para 20).
The Supreme Court dismissed UCO Bank's review of its 2007 judgment, holding that a show-cause notice issued just before an officer retired did not initiate disciplinary proceedings. Under the bank's 1976 regulations, "Drawing up of a charge sheet, therefore, is the condition precedent for initiation of a disciplinary proceedings" (para 22). The deeming fiction in Regulation 20(3)(ii) of the 1979 regulations operates only to stop an officer from resigning (para 14).
In this 2008 ruling the Supreme Court held that when a narcotic drug is mixed with neutral substances, only the actual content of the drug decides whether it is a small or commercial quantity for punishment (paras 13, 16). A heroin carrier caught with 4.07 kg of powder of 1.4-1.6% purity held about 60 gms of heroin, an intermediate quantity under Section 21(b), and his ten-year sentence was cut to six years (paras 3-4, 17-19). The three-Judge Bench in Hira Singh (2020) later held this view not good law.
The Supreme Court restored a Tribunal order quashing a penalty imposed on a railway booking supervisor caught in a decoy check (paras 3, 5, 27). Even if provisions 704 and 705 of the Railway Vigilance Manual are executive instructions, "substantial compliance thereof was necessary" (para 21), and an enquiry in which the Enquiry Officer acted as prosecutor and did not put the adverse circumstances to the employee under Rule 9(21) could not stand (paras 19, 25, 27).
The Supreme Court held that a circular issued by Kerala's Board of Revenue under Section 3(1A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is "binding on the Department though not on the courts and the assessees" (para 21). Assessing officers could not reopen completed assessments on the footing that the circular, which treated field latex and centrifuged latex as one commodity, was erroneous while it remained in force (paras 4, 21-22).
The Supreme Court set aside a cheque-dishonour conviction, holding that an accused "need not examine himself" to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and may rely on the material on record, on a preponderance of probabilities (paras 23, 25). It also said that the existence of a legally recoverable debt is not presumed under Section 139 (para 21). The complainant's unwitnessed, undocumented Rs. 1.5 lakh cash loan was improbable (para 29).