GIST OF FEW JUDGEMENTS OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ON VARIOUS CASES CONCERNING OFFENCES UNDER NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985.

GIST OF FEW JUDGEMENTS OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ON VARIOUS CASES CONCERNING OFFENCES UNDER NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985.

 

Sl. NO.	Title	CITATION	COURT’S ORDER IN BRIEF
1	Hira Singh And Another  Vs. Union Of India And Another	(2020) 04 SC CK 0024	In case of seizure of mixture of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances with one or more neutral substance(s), quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded while determining "small or commercial quantity" of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances. A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 21 Contraband - Seizure of mixture - In E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau (2008) 03 SC CK 0180 Court took view that when any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance found mixed with one or more neutral substance, for purpose of imposition of punishment only content of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance to be taken into consideration - In said decision Court has not at all considered the relevant entry in the Notification dated 19.10.2001 - Notification specified "small quantity" and "commercial quantity" of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances mentioned in column nos. 5 & 6 of table - Said decision is not a good law - In case of seizure of mixture of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances with one or more neutral substance(s), quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with actual content by weight of offending drug, while determining "small or commercial quantity" of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances.
2	State Of Kerala Etc Vs. Rajesh Etc.	(2020) 01 SC CK 0070	A Division Bench of the Supreme Court while setting aside the Order of the Single Judge of the High Court granting bail to the accused under NDPS Act categorically held that the scheme of Section 37 of NDPS Act reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the Cr.PC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 of NDPS Act which commences with non­obstante clause. The operative part of section 37 of NDPS Act. is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the NDPS Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 of NDPS Act that in addition to the limitations provided under the Cr.PC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for
3	Rizwan  Khan Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh	(2020) 09 SC CK 0017	A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that to prove the case under the NDPS Act, the ownership of the vehicle is not required to be established and proved. It is enough to establish and prove that the contraband articles were found from the accused from the vehicle purchased by the accused. Ownership of the vehicle is immaterial. What is required to be established and proved is the recovery of the contraband articles and the commission of an offence under the NDPS Act? Therefore, merely because of the ownership of the vehicle is not established and proved and/or the vehicle is not recovered subsequently, trial is not vitiated, while the prosecution has been successful in proving and establishing the recovery of the contraband articles from the accused on the spot. The Supreme Court therefore upheld the decision of the Special Court and High Court and held that both the courts below have rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Full Bench held that they are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Special Court and confirmed by the High Court and the conviction recorded by both the courts below. Full Bench did not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act.
4	Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch Of Delhi)	(2020) 08 SC CK 0046	Full Bench comprising of Five Judges of the Supreme Court Ruled: In a case under NDPS Act, where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, merely because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a case to case basis. A contrary decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab (2018) 08 SC CK 0033 and any other decision taking a contrary view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically overruled.
5	Surinder Kumar Vs. State Of Punjab	(2020) 01 SC CK 0001	Non examination of independent witness by prosecution does not mean accused was falsely implicated. A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 18 and 50 Recovery of opium - Non examination of independent witness - Violation of conditions under which search of persons be conducted - Merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that accused was falsely implicated - Hence, conviction and sentence upheld.
6	Ebha Arjun Jadeja & Ors Vs. State Of Gujarat	(2019) 10 SC CK 0046	Each case is to be decided on its own facts. The police official, not being the District Superintendent of Police, may receive information of commission of an offence and may reach the scene of a crime. He can record the information on the spot and then send a rukka to the police station for recording of FIR. There may be cases of serious offences like murder, rape, offences under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 etc. where any delay in investigation is fatal. In these cases, the police officer is entitled to record the information some of which may indicate an offence under TADA Act, also because non­recording of the information with regard to the main offence may delay the investigation and hamper proper investigation in the matter. In such cases, while recording the information and recording the FIR, for the offences falling under TADA Act, the police officials concerned can approach the District Superintendent of Police for sanction under Section 20­A(1) of TADA Act. The investigation in serious cases of murder, rape, smuggling, narcotics, POCSO Act etc. cannot be delayed only because TADA Act is also involved.
7	Mohammed Fasrin Vs. State Rep. By The Intelligence Officer	(2019) 09 SC CK 0118	NDPS Act - If confession is admissible, Court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary statement, free from any pressure and accused apprised of his rights before recording confession. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8(c) read with 29, 21, 23(c), 27(A)and 67 Exporting or importing into India or exporting from India contraband substance - Possession of 7.4kgs of Heroin - Confessional statement of accused - Admissibility - Even if confession is admissible, Court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary statement, free from any pressure and also that accused was apprised of his rights before recording confession - Confession, especially a confession recorded when accused is in custody, is a weak piece of evidence and there must be some corroborative evidence - Confession of co-accused is of no material value - Thus, no evidence to link accused with commission of offence - Therefore, conviction and sentence set aside.
8	State Of Rajasthan  Vs.  Sahi Ram	(2019) 09 SC CK 0106	Non-production of contraband before court - Not singularly sufficient to grant benefit of acquittal. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 8 and 15 Non production of contraband - Sustainability of acquittal - If seizure of material is otherwise proved on record and is not even doubted or disputed entire contraband material need not be placed before Court - At times material could be so bulky that it may not be possible and feasible to produce entire bulk before Court - High Court not justified in extending benefit of acquittal for non-production of entire contraband before Court - Acquittal set aside.
9	Serious Fraud Investigation Office  Vs.  Nittin Johari & Anr	(2019) 09 SC CK 0032	Additionally, reference was made to the mandatory conditions under Section 212(6)(ii) of the Companies Act, which require the Court to record its satisfaction that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It was argued that these conditions do not imply that an applicant would be kept in custody indefinitely. In this respect, our attention was drawn to the decision in Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 03 SC CK 0009, pertaining to an analogous provision (i.e. Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985), in which it was held that the term “reasonable grounds” refers to something more than prima facie grounds, and contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence concerned.
10	Vijay Pandey  Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh	(2019) 07 SC CK 0108	Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 8,15 and 50 Recovery of 10 kgs. Opium - No name of any person mentioned who may have declined to be a independent witness - Thoug Laboratory Report was obtained, but identity of sample stated to have been seized from accused not conclusively established by prosecution - Since allegations against accused proved by witnesses, failure to conclusively identify sample produced as having been seized from accused inconsequential - Further, failure of prosecution to relate seized sample with that seized from accused makes case no different from failure to produce seized sample itself - Thus, mere production of a laboratory report that sample tested was narcotics cannot be conclusive proof by itself - Sample seized and that tested have to be co-related - Hence, conviction set aside.
11	Satvinder Singh @ Satvinder Singh Saluja & Ors Vs. State Of Bihar	(2019) 07 SC CK 0004	Non examination of independent witness by prosecution does not mean accused was falsely implicated. A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 18 and 50 Recovery of opium - Non examination of independent witness - Violation of conditions under which search of persons be conducted - Merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that accused was falsely implicated - Hence, conviction and sentence upheld.
12	Rafiq Qureshi  Vs.  Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit	(2019) 05 SC CK 0025	The Supreme Court has partly allowed the appeal in Rafiq Qureshi v Narcotic Control Bureau, Eastern Zonal Unit, reducing the sentence of the convict from 16 to 12 years.A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and K M Joseph, has observed that possession of narcotics substance much higher than the commercial quantity is relevant to determine the quantum of punishment. Although none of the essential factors of Section 32B of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, the specific words used in the Section are: “Court may, in addition to such factors as it may deem fit…” The Court has thus said that its discretion is not fettered by factors which are enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 32B. The minimum sentence is 10 years and a higher sentence can be awarded under Section 32B. Thus punishment higher than the minimum is justified based on Court’s discretion of considering quantity of narcotics as a factor.Court modified the sentence to 12 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs 2 lakhs.
13	Gangadhar Alias Gangaram Vs.  State Of Madhya Pradesh	(2020) 08 SC CK 0002	The Hon’ble Supreme Court, observed that the presumption against the accused of culpability under Section 35, and under Section 54 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to explain possession satisfactorily, are rebuttable. It does not dispense with the obligation of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt
14	State Of Maharashtra  Vs. Surendra Pundlik Gadling & Ors	(2019) 02 SC CK 0055	Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ has set aside the Bombay High Court decision refusing the Maharashtra Police a ninety-day extension to file the charge-sheet under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 against the human rights activists in Bhima Koregaon violence case. Insofar as the facts are concerned, the accused was arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and was kept in detention for the initial period of 180 days. The complaint was filed just before the expiry of the statutorily stipulated one year period. The endeavour of the accused to seek bail post filing of the complaint did not succeed and it is thereafter that an endeavour was made to assail the initial extension of detention on the ground that the report of the Public Prosecutor did not meet the relevant test. At that stage also, ultimately the Supreme Court held in favour of the accused by opining that he would be entitled to “default bail” relying on the judgment in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra)
15	Varinder Kumar  Vs.  State Of Himachal Pradesh	(2019) 02 SC CK 0040	Hon'ble Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi along with Justices Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph of Supreme Court holds that Human rights’ are not confined only to the accused but extends to victims also, keeping in mind the societal interest. The appellant Mr. Varinder Kumar challenged the order of conviction passed by the High Court sentencing him under Section 20(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.Brief Facts: The appellant was apprehended on 31.03.1995 for carrying “charas” on his scooter, in two gunny bags, with varying quantities. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant on grounds of non-compliance with Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with regard to independent witnesses. The High Court, reversing the acquittal held that merely because the two independent witnesses were not from the same locality, would notipso facto amount to violation of Section 100(4), Cr.P.C.
16	State Of Punjab  Vs.  Rakesh Kumar	(2018) 12 SC CK 0001	Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana, M.M. Shantanagoudar and M.R. Shah, JJ. allowed a set of appeals filed against the common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby it had allowed application for suspension of sentence preferred by accused persons and directed them to be released on bail. The accused were apprehended with “manufactured drugs” and convicted by the trial court under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused approached the High Court. During the pendency of appeals, the High Court passed the judgment stated above observing that “manufactured drugs”, be it containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, must be tried under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred present appeals
17	The Superintendent, Narcotic Control Bureau Vs.  Parash Singh	(2008) 10 SC CK 0020	The Amendment Act does not create any new offence for the reasons that ingredients of the offence under the substantive provision, namely, Section 8 remain the same. The only quantum of punishment has been changed by the amending Act. Quantum of punishment has to be determined with reference to relevant provision in Section 20 as it stood at the time of the commission of offence
18	State Of Uttaranchal  Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta	(2006) 11 SC CK 0151	Exceptions contained, held, must be judged on the touchstone of, first, whether drugs are used for medicinal purposes, and second, whether they come within the purview of the regulatory provisions contained in Chs. VI and VII of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985
19	Ram Singh  Vs.  Central Bureau Of Narcotics	(2011) 04 SC CK 0111	Once an article is found in possession of accused, it can be presumed that he was in conscious possession. Possession is a polymorphous term which carries different meanings in different contexts and circumstances and, therefore, it is difficult to lay down a completely logical and precise definition uniformly applicable to all situations with reference to all statutes. A servant of a hotel cannot be said to be in possession of contraband belonging to his master, unless it is proved that it was left in his custody over which he had absolute control
20	Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan Vs. State Of Gujarat	(2012) 10 SC CK 0051	Appellants who were convicted under and sentenced to 15 yrs’ RI with fine of Rs 1.5 lakhs for carrying commercial quantity of brown sugar from one State to another as were first-time offenders, having no past antecedents of involvement in offence of like nature sentence deserves to be reduced to the minimum prescribed period of 10 yrs’ RI
21	Union Of India (UOI)  Vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande	(2014) 08 SC CK 0044	Prohibition under Section 8(c) would be attracted to prohibited substances which are not mentioned in Schedule to NDPS Rules but are mentioned in Schedule to NDPS Act, and substances intended for medicinal and scientific purposes because they are prohibited under NDPS Act. NDPS Act does not contemplate framing of rules for prohibiting various activities dealing with narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It only contemplates framing of rules permitting and regulating any activity of dealing with such substances. Section 8(c) prohibits in absolute terms certain activities (like the present case involving import into and export out of India of any narcotic drug and psychotropic substances). Rules created under the NDPS Act cannot be understood to create rights and obligations contrary to those contained in the parent Act. Further held, mere fact that the dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is for a medicinal or scientific purpose does not by itself lift the embargo created under Section 8(c). Such dealing (in present case import and export of prohibited substances for medicinal and scientific purposes) must be in the manner and extent provided in the NDPS Act, Rules or Orders. But the rules like Rule 53 or Rule 64, NDPS Rules cannot be the source of authority for prohibiting or dealing with narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances
22	Arutla Shankaraiah Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh	(2015) 08 SC CK 0137	It is enough to establish possession of place of recovery on part of accused and it is not necessary to establish ownership thereof on part of accused
23	Laxmi Nagappa Koli Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau	(2014) 09 SC CK 0124	Heroin is a chemical composition, not a Nitrogen-based compound
24	Union Of India  Vs. Leen Martin & Anr	(2018) 02 SC CK 0018	In case of Alleged recovery of contraband from suitcase, statement of official witness, found impaired due to infirmities, is not safe to rely upon and pass conviction order. When statements of independent panch witnesses, depicting a different picture than one portrayed by official witness, as to recovery and seizure and recovery of narcotic substance, not proved beyond reasonable doubt, reversal of conviction by High Court, confirmed
25	Gaunter Edwin Kircher Vs. State Of Goa, Secretariat Panji, Goa	(1993) 03 SC CK 0066	Under Section 27 the following ingredients should be fulfilled.— (a) The person has been found in possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in ‘small quantity’; (b) Such possession should be in contravention of any provision of the Act or any rule of order made or permit issued thereunder; and (c) The said possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was intended for his personal consumption and not for sale or distribution Where two pieces of charas weighing 7 gms and 5 gms respectively were recovered from the accused, but only one piece weighing less than 5 gms was sent for chemical analysis it could not be said 12 gms of narcotic drug was recovered from the accused
26	Anil Kumar  Vs.  State Of Punjab	(2017) 01 SC CK 0064	When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced. Only in appropriate cases, considering facts of the case, can court make the sentence run concurrently with an earlier sentence imposed. Investiture of such discretion presupposes that such discretion be exercised by court on sound judicial principles and not in a mechanical manner. Whether or not the discretion is to be exercised in directing sentences to run concurrently, would depend upon nature of offence/offences and facts and circumstances of each case

 OR

NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com