Important Judgments On NDPS Act

The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts of the Country have pronounced numerous judgments in the matters related to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. In this write-up, the important pronouncements are briefly discussed. Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow v. Md. Nawaz Khan, CriminalAppeal No. 1043 of 2021 A Bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna held that the test which the Supreme Court and the High Courts are required 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. The Bench observed that stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed in order to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country. The Bench further observed that under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the limitations on the grant of bail for offences punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27A and also for offences involving a commercial quantity are; the Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application for bail; and there must exist reasonable grounds to believe that the person is not guilty of such an offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 2021. A Bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah held that while awarding the sentence/punishment in case of the NDPS Act, the interest of the society as a whole is required to be taken into consideration and while striking a balance between the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, public interest, impact on the society as a whole will always tilt in favour of the suitable higher punishment. The Bench observed that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to a number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable, it causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society, they are a hazard to the society. The Bench further observed that organized activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances shall lay to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2013. A Bench of Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee (dissenting), in a 2:1 majority, held that the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. It was also held that a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. The judgments in Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India and Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India were overruled. It was observed that to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional statement made before an officer designated under section 42 or section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act without any non-obstante clause doing away with section 25 of the Evidence Act and without any safeguards would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 2020. A Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah 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. 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. Mukesh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), Special Leave Petition (Criminal) DiaryNo. 39528/2018. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, held that in a case where the informant himself is the investigator, that cannot vitiate the investigation on the ground...

Important Judgments On NDPS Act

Muneeb Rashid Malik

Tags