NDPS Act : Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021

[Case: Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 196]

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that quantity of narcotic substance recovered is a relevant factor that can be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court also observed that the Court has a wide discretion to impose the sentence/imprisonment ranging between 10 years to 20 years and while imposing such sentence/imprisonment in addition, the Court may also take into consideration factor as it may deem fit other than the factors enumerated in Section 32B (a) to (f) of the Act.

[Case: Boota Singh v. State Of Haryana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 218]

A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and KM Joseph observed that a private vehicle would not come within the expression "public place" as explained in Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The bench also observed that total non-compliance of Section 42 is impermissible though its rigor may get lessened in certain situations.

In this case, recovery was effected from the accused while they were sitting on road in a jeep at a public place. While upholding the conviction of the accused, the High Court held that the case of accused would be covered by Section 43 of NDPS Act and not by Section 42. Section 42 deals with Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation while Section 43 with power of seizure and arrest in public place.

[Case: Ragini Dwivedi @ Gini @ Rags v. State Of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 38]

A Bench headed by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman granted bail to Kannada actor Ragini Dwivedi, who had been arrested by the police for allegedly consuming and supplying drugs at parties and events organized by her and others, and set aside a Karnataka High Court order wherein her bail plea was dismissed. The Bench noted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act had been wrongly invoked by the Sessions Court and the High Court.

[Case: Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 489]

The Supreme Court observed that bail cannot be granted to an accused under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, merely on a finding of the absence of possession of the contraband on the person of the accused. Such a finding does not absolve the court of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed. The court reiterated that the test to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.

[Case: Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 586]

In a case under the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court set aside the charges framed against the accused after noting that the case was based on statements by other accused given to officers under Section 67, which are inadmissible in evidence. A bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Khanna and Bela Trivedi noted that the Supreme Court's verdict in last year's case Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu had declared that confessions made to NDPS officers are inadmissible in evidence. In this case, it observed that the factual position was that no narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances were recovered from the premises of the two appellants.

[Case: Mohd Zahid v. State through NCB; Citation: LL 2021 SC 722]

The Supreme Court reiterated that discretion to direct subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of offences committed. A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna observed that in NDPS cases, even while applying discretion under Section 427 of Cr.PC, the discretion shall not be in favour of the accused who is found to be indulging in illegal trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Section 50 NDPS Act Conditions Not Required To Be Complied In Case Of Vehicle Search: Supreme Court

[Case: Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 731]

The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act is required to be complied in the case of personal search only with but not in the case of search of vehicle. The court also observed that merely because independent witnesses were not examined, the conclusion could not be drawn that accused was falsely implicated. Non­-production of contraband in the Court by itself is not fatal, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed while confirming the conviction of an accused in an NDPS case.

Sexual Enhancement Drugs Do Not Attract NDPS Act: Supreme Court Grants Bail To Accused

[Case: Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 733]

Sexual enhancement tablets meant to enhance male potency do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court observed while granting bail to NDPS Accused. A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli observed that the test report stated that the "quantitative analysis of the samples could not be carried out for want of facilities"

"In the absence of any clarity so far on the quantitative analysis of the samples, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act. Further, a large number of the tablets that have been seized by the DRI admittedly contain herbs/medicines meant to enhance male potency and they do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act.", the court said.