In a significant ruling aimed at reinforcing the legislative intent of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Supreme Court has held that possession or dealing with psychotropic substances listed in the Schedule of the NDPS Act constitutes an offence under Section 8(c), even if such substances are not included in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules.
Case Background:
The case titled Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors. [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434] arose when the accused was found in possession of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, a psychotropic substance listed under the Schedule to the NDPS Act but omitted from Schedule I of the NDPS Rules. The trial court, relying on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2007), held that the accused could not be prosecuted under the NDPS Act since the substance was not part of the Rules’ Schedule. It consequently deleted the charges using Section 216 of the CrPC.
The High Court upheld this view, prompting the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to appeal before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issue:
The central legal issue was whether handling a substance listed in the NDPS Act Schedule—but not in the NDPS Rules—amounts to an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act.
Supreme Court’s Ruling:
A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra overturned the High Court’s ruling and reinstated charges against the accused. The Court clarified that the NDPS Act and the NDPS Rules serve complementary but distinct roles, and prosecution under Section 8(c) does not depend on inclusion in the Rules’ Schedule I.
Reaffirmation of Precedent in Sanjeev V. Deshpande:
Justice Pardiwala, writing for the Bench, emphasized that the 2014 judgment in Union of India & Anr. v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) 13 SCC 1 had already overruled the Rajesh Kumar Gupta ruling. The Court in Deshpande had held that all substances mentioned in the NDPS Act Schedule are prosecutable under the Act regardless of their absence in the NDPS Rules.
The Supreme Court noted that the trial court and the High Court had failed to account for the binding precedent in Deshpande, thus committing a serious error in law.
“It cannot be said that the dealing in of ‘Buprenorphine Hydrochloride’ would not amount to an offence under Section 8 of the NDPS Act owing to the fact that the said psychotropic substance only finds mention under the Schedule to the NDPS Act and is not listed under Schedule I of the NDPS Rules,” the Court held.
Scope of Section 8(c) of NDPS Act:
Section 8(c) criminalizes the production, possession, sale, purchase, transport, use, and various other activities involving narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, unless conducted for medical or scientific purposes and in accordance with the Act, Rules, and necessary licences.
The Court reiterated that for the accused to claim exemption under Section 8, it must be shown that:
- The substance was dealt with for medical or scientific purposes;
- It was done in the manner and to the extent provided by the Act/Rules; and
- The activity was authorized by a valid licence or permit.
Since none of these conditions were satisfied by the accused, the exemption did not apply.
On Use of Section 216 CrPC:
Another crucial aspect of the ruling was the Court’s censure of the trial court’s misuse of Section 216 CrPC, which only permits the addition or alteration of charges but not deletion. The Court held that neither Section 216 CrPC nor the corresponding Section 239 of the BNSS authorizes courts to delete charges after framing.
This interpretation is consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence which limits judicial interference post-framing of charges unless permissible under express provisions.
Retrospective Application of Law:
The judgment also reaffirms the principle that a subsequent ruling overruling an earlier decision applies retrospectively, unless the Court explicitly states otherwise. Hence, the precedent set in Deshpande was deemed to have retrospective effect, applicable to this case even though the initial trial court order was based on an overruled judgment.
Why This Judgment Matters:
- Clarifies prosecutable substances: The ruling provides much-needed clarity for investigators and prosecutors that substances listed in the NDPS Act Schedule are covered under Section 8(c), even without appearing in the NDPS Rules.
- Reinforces compliance requirements: It sends a strong message to pharmaceutical and medical sectors that any handling of psychotropic substances must strictly comply with the licensing framework.
- Limits judicial overreach: By reining in the misuse of procedural powers like Section 216 CrPC, the judgment reinforces procedural discipline during trial.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors. is a landmark clarification in NDPS jurisprudence. It ensures that legal technicalities, such as non-inclusion in Rules, do not shield offenders who deal in controlled substances unlawfully. This verdict strengthens the prosecutorial framework under the NDPS Act and upholds the legislative mandate to curb drug abuse and trafficking.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has also ensured uniformity in the application of NDPS laws across the country and aligned judicial interpretation with public interest and legislative intent.
