Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora

,

Citation: 2025 INSC 498 : 2025 (4) KLR (SC) 82
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: J.B. Pardiwala, J.; Manoj Misra, J.
Date of Judgment: 17 April, 2025
Appeals: Criminal Appeal No. 1319 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2014

Headnote

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 8(c) – Psychotropic Substances – Buprenorphine Hydrochloride – Applicability of NDPS Act vis-à-vis Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Retrospective Application of Judicial Precedent – Scope of Section 216 CrPC – Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – Article 20(1) of Constitution.

  1. Held: Dealing in Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, a psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, constitutes an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. The mere inclusion of a substance in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (D&C Act) does not exempt it from the NDPS Act’s purview if listed in the NDPS Schedule. Rules 53 and 64 of NDPS Rules do not exclusively govern psychotropic substances, and other rules in Chapters VI and VII apply to substances in the NDPS Act Schedule. [Paras 156-157]
  2. Held: The decision in Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) 13 SCC 1, overruling State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2007) 1 SCC 355, applies retrospectively. The Sanjeev ruling clarified the true legislative intent of Section 8(c) without creating a new offence, thus not violating Article 20(1). However, acquittals based on Rajesh Kumar Gupta that have attained finality will not be disturbed to avoid reopening settled matters. Pending cases, including those predating Sanjeev, are to be governed by its interpretation. [Paras 158-160]
  3. Held: Section 216 CrPC permits courts to alter or add charges before judgment but does not allow deletion of charges or discharge of an accused post-charge framing. The Trial Courts erred in deleting NDPS Act charges and transferring cases to the Metropolitan Magistrate under the D&C Act via Section 216 applications, as this is impermissible under criminal procedure. Once charges are framed under Section 228 CrPC, the trial must proceed to conviction or acquittal. [Paras 161-162]
  4. Held: The NDPS Act and D&C Act operate concurrently for substances listed under both regimes due to their dual potential for medical use and abuse. Section 80 of the NDPS Act clarifies that its provisions are in addition to, not in derogation of, the D&C Act. The High Court’s reliance on Rajesh Kumar Gupta was erroneous, as it misconstrued the NDPS Act’s scope. [Paras 157, 29]
  5. Held: The doctrine of prospective overruling was not invoked in Sanjeev V. Deshpande, and no compelling reason exists to apply it here. Retrospective application aligns with the NDPS Act’s objective to combat drug abuse and protect public health, ensuring no prejudice to accused rights under Article 20(1). [Paras 158-159]
  6. Direction: The impugned High Court orders dismissing the appellant’s revision petitions are set aside. The Trial Courts’ orders deleting NDPS Act charges are quashed. The cases are remanded to the Special Judge, NDPS, for trial in accordance with law, to be concluded expeditiously. [Para 162]

Cases Referred

  • Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) 13 SCC 1
  • State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2007) 1 SCC 355
  • K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2283
  • Rajender Gupta v. State 2005 SCC OnLine Del 873
  • Anant Prakash Sinha v. State of Haryana (2016) 6 SCC 105
  • Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P. (2020) 12 SCC 467
  • Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh (1953) 2 SCC 111
  • Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore (2023) 15 SCC 339

Statutes Referred

  • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 8, 22, 29, 80
  • Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 216, 227, 228
  • Constitution of India – Article 20(1)
  • United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971

Result

Appeals allowed. Impugned orders set aside. Cases remanded for trial under NDPS Act.

Facts

  • Criminal Appeal No. 1319 of 2013: On 27.09.2003, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized 40,001 unlabelled glass ampoules containing Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, a psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act, 1985, from Raj Kumar Arora’s office in Delhi. Additional seizures occurred at Win Drugs Ltd. in Haryana. Arora and co-respondents were charged under Sections 8, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act for illegal possession, manufacture, and conspiracy. The Special Court framed charges, but the High Court, relying on Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2007), held that Buprenorphine, not listed in Schedule I of NDPS Rules, fell under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (D&C Act), 1940, not NDPS Act. The Trial Court, via a Section 216 CrPC application, transferred the case to the Metropolitan Magistrate, which the High Court upheld.
  • Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2014: On 07.10.2004, the Narcotics Control Bureau seized Buprenorphine ampoules and charged Sajesh Sharma under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act for illegal sale without proper documentation. Citing Rajender Gupta (2005), the Trial Court, through a Section 216 CrPC application, held no NDPS offence was made out and remanded the case to the Metropolitan Magistrate under the D&C Act. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge.
  • Common Issue: Whether dealing in Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, listed in the NDPS Act Schedule but not in Schedule I of NDPS Rules, constitutes an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, and whether the Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) ruling applies retrospectively.

Issues

  1. Does dealing in a psychotropic substance listed in the NDPS Act Schedule but not in Schedule I of NDPS Rules violate Section 8(c)?
  2. Should the Sanjeev V. Deshpande decision, overruling Rajesh Kumar Gupta, apply retrospectively?
  3. Can an accused seek discharge or deletion of charges under Section 216 CrPC after charges are framed under Section 228 CrPC?

Holding

  1. NDPS Act Applicability: Dealing in Buprenorphine Hydrochloride is an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, regardless of its absence from Schedule I of NDPS Rules. The NDPS Act and D&C Act operate concurrently, as per Section 80, for substances with dual medical and abusive potential.
  2. Retrospective Application: Sanjeev V. Deshpande applies retrospectively, clarifying the NDPS Act’s intent without creating a new offence, thus not violating Article 20(1). Acquittals based on Rajesh Kumar Gupta with finality remain undisturbed, but pending cases follow Sanjeev.
  3. Section 216 CrPC Scope: Section 216 CrPC allows alteration or addition of charges, not deletion or discharge post-framing. The Trial Courts erred in deleting NDPS charges and transferring cases to the Metropolitan Magistrate.

Reasoning

  • NDPS Act Scope: The Court held that Section 8(c) prohibits dealing in any psychotropic substance listed in the NDPS Act Schedule, not limited to Schedule I of NDPS Rules. Rules 53 and 64 are not exclusive, and other rules apply to all scheduled substances. The D&C Act’s inclusion of Buprenorphine does not exempt it from NDPS Act scrutiny, aligning with the Act’s objective to combat drug abuse (Hira Singh v. Union of India).
  • Retrospective Effect: Sanjeev V. Deshpande clarified the NDPS Act’s original intent, not creating a new offence. The Blackstonian theory supports retrospective application, as overruling does not equate to ex-post facto law (Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh). Final acquittals are preserved for practical reasons, but pending cases must align with the correct law.
  • Section 216 CrPC Limits: The Court reiterated that Section 216 CrPC does not permit discharge or charge deletion after framing (K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu). The Trial Courts’ actions were procedurally invalid, as charges must lead to conviction or acquittal, not mid-trial transfer.

Disposition

  • Appeals allowed.
  • Impugned High Court orders (13.07.2011 and 20.03.2013) and Trial Court orders (30.11.2006 and 17.04.2010) set aside.
  • Cases remanded to Special Judge, NDPS, for expeditious trial under the NDPS Act.
  • Registry to circulate judgment to all High Courts.

Key Precedents

1. Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) 13 SCC 1

  • Observation:
    • The prohibition under Section 8 of the NDPS Act applies to psychotropic substances listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act as well as those in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules. The NDPS Act does not require the framing of rules to prohibit activities involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, as Section 8(c) already prohibits such activities.
    • The decision expressly overruled State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2007) 1 SCC 355, stating that it ignored the mandate of Section 8(c) and was incorrectly decided. [Paras 27, 132, 158]
  • Relevance:
    • This case clarified that Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, listed in the NDPS Act Schedule, is subject to NDPS Act prohibitions, irrespective of its absence from Schedule I of the NDPS Rules. It formed the basis for the Court’s ruling that dealing in such substances constitutes an offence under Section 8(c).

2. State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2007) 1 SCC 355

  • Observation:
    • If a drug does not appear in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, the provisions of Section 8 of the NDPS Act have no application. The case involved phenobarbitone, a Schedule H drug under the D& C Act, and held that its regulation fell under the D& C Act, not the NDPS Act. [Paras 15, 16, 25]
    • The Supreme Court’s observations were made in the context of a bail order, but the Court examined NDPS Act and Rules provisions, concluding that Schedule I absence exempted substances from NDPS Act prohibitions. [Para 16]
  • Relevance:
    • This decision was relied upon by the High Court and Trial Courts to hold that Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, not listed in Schedule I, was governed by the D& C Act. The Supreme Court in the present case overruled this precedent, finding it erroneously restricted the scope of Section 8(c). [Paras 24, 132, 161]

3. K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2283

  • Observation:
    • Section 216 CrPC does not permit an accused to seek discharge after charges are framed under Section 228 CrPC. Filing applications under Section 216 CrPC to alter charges post-rejection of discharge applications under Section 227 CrPC is often a tactic to delay trials, either due to ignorance of law or deliberate intent. Such practices are deplorable and should be dealt with sternly. [Paras 30, 152, 181]
    • The Court emphasized that Section 216 is an enabling provision for altering or adding charges, not for deleting them or discharging an accused. [Para 181]
  • Relevance:
    • This precedent was critical in determining that the Trial Courts erred in deleting NDPS Act charges via Section 216 CrPC applications. The Supreme Court held that such actions were procedurally invalid, as charges must lead to conviction or acquittal. [Paras 161, 162]

4. Anant Prakash Sinha v. State of Haryana (2016) 6 SCC 105

  • Observation:
    • The power under Section 216 CrPC to alter or add charges must be based on material available on record, including the complaint, FIR, or evidence adduced during trial. The Court can alter charges if there is a defect or omission in framing, even before evidence is fully presented. [Para 145]
    • No prejudice should be caused to the accused, who must be informed of the altered charge to prepare a defense. The Court’s duty is to ensure a fair trial. [Para 145]
  • Relevance:
    • This case outlined the principles governing Section 216 CrPC, supporting the Court’s view that the provision allows only alteration or addition of charges, not deletion. It underscored the procedural limits applied in the present case to reject the Trial Courts’ actions. [Paras 145, 161]

5. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P. (2020) 12 SCC 467

  • Observation:
    • Section 216 CrPC grants wide-ranging power to alter or add charges at any stage before judgment, including after evidence and arguments are completed. The Court can act if there is an omission in framing charges or if material suggests another offence’s ingredients. [Para 146]
    • The power must be exercised judiciously, ensuring no prejudice to the accused, and the material must have a direct nexus with the alleged offence. [Para 146]
  • Relevance:
    • This precedent reinforced the scope of Section 216 CrPC, clarifying that it does not extend to deleting charges or discharging an accused. It supported the Court’s conclusion that the Trial Courts’ transfer of cases to the Metropolitan Magistrate was impermissible. [Paras 146, 161]

6. Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh (1953) 2 SCC 111

  • Observation:
    • Article 20(1) prohibits conviction or sentencing under an ex-post facto law for acts not criminal when committed. The term “law in force” refers to the law factually in existence at the time of the offence, not a law deemed operative retrospectively through legislative fiction. [Paras 131, 136]
    • It is unjust and violative of human rights to punish under a law that retroactively criminalizes prior acts. [Para 131]
  • Relevance:
    • This case was used to assess whether retrospective application of Sanjeev V. Deshpande violated Article 20(1). The Court distinguished it, noting that Sanjeev clarified existing law, not created a new offence, thus posing no Article 20(1) issue. [Paras 136, 159]

7. Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore (2023) 15 SCC 339

  • Observation:
    • Declaring a provision unconstitutional (e.g., Section 6-A of DSPE Act) renders it void ab initio with retrospective effect, as it does not involve repeal under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. No rights accrue under an unconstitutional provision. [Para 131]
    • Article 20(1) prohibits conviction under ex-post facto laws, but overruling a decision clarifying existing law does not create a new offence. [Para 131]
  • Relevance:
    • This precedent supported the Court’s finding that Sanjeev V. Deshpande’s retrospective application did not infringe Article 20(1), as it merely corrected Rajesh Kumar Gupta’s misinterpretation without altering the NDPS Act’s original scope. [Paras 131, 159]

8. Rajender Gupta v. State (2005) SCC OnLine Del 873

  • Observation:
    • Dealing in substances listed in the NDPS Act Schedule but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules does not constitute an offence under the NDPS Act. Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, as a Schedule H drug under the D& C Act, falls under its regime. [Paras 19, 34]
  • Relevance:
    • The High Court and Trial Courts relied on this decision to rule that no NDPS offence was made out. The Supreme Court rejected this view, following Sanjeev V. Deshpande, and held that the NDPS Act applies to all scheduled substances. [Paras 19, 161]

9. Hira Singh v. Union of India (2020) 20 SCC 272

  • Observation:
    • The NDPS Act aims to deter drug abuse with stringent provisions to control narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It addresses international drug trafficking and societal harm, requiring strict interpretation to achieve its preventive and punitive objectives. [Para 41]
  • Relevance:
    • This case underscored the NDPS Act’s purpose, supporting the Court’s interpretation that Section 8(c) applies broadly to scheduled substances to combat drug abuse, justifying the retrospective application of Sanjeev V. Deshpande. [Paras 41, 158]

10. State of Rajasthan v. Udai Lal (2008) 11 SCC 408

  • Observation:
    • The NDPS Act is a special law enacted to consolidate and amend laws on narcotic drugs, with stringent provisions for control and regulation, and to implement international conventions. [Para 40]
  • Relevance:
    • This precedent highlighted the NDPS Act’s stringent framework, reinforcing the Court’s view that its provisions, including Section 8(c), must be interpreted to cover all scheduled psychotropic substances to fulfill its objectives. [Para 40]

11. Sohan Lal and Others v. State of Rajasthan (1990) 4 SCC 580

  • Observation:
    • To “alter” a charge under Section 216 CrPC means varying an existing charge to make a different one, while “add” implies introducing a new charge. The provision applies only to existing charges and not to discharged accused. [Para 148]
  • Relevance:
    • This case clarified the meaning of “alter” in Section 216 CrPC, supporting the Court’s finding that the Trial Courts’ deletion of NDPS charges was not an alteration but an impermissible discharge. [Paras 148, 161]

12. Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation v. Cherukattil Gopalan (1971) 2 SCC 322

  • Observation:
    • An accused may be held “technically guilty” to clarify the legal position without setting aside an acquittal, especially in test cases where conviction is not sought. [Para 139]
  • Relevance:
    • This precedent was referenced to discuss the concept of technical guilt. The Court noted that, unlike acquittals, the respondents were discharged, so no technical guilt declaration was needed; instead, trials were to proceed. [Para 140]

13. Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 298

  • Observation:
    • Article 20(1) protects against conviction for acts not criminal when committed. A new offence created by a later provision cannot apply retrospectively. [Para 130]
  • Relevance:
    • Distinguished by the Court, as Sanjeev V. Deshpande did not create a new offence but clarified existing law, unlike the distinct offence in this case, thus no Article 20(1) violation arose. [Para 136]

14. Vibhuti Narayan Chaubey Alias v. State of U.P. (2003) Cri LJ 196 (Allahabad High Court)

  • Observation:
    • Section 216 CrPC does not provide for deletion of a charge, as the legislature intentionally omitted the word “delete.” Charges must lead to acquittal or conviction. [Para 154]
  • Relevance:
    • This High Court decision was cited to support the Supreme Court’s view that Section 216 CrPC does not allow charge deletion, affirming the Trial Courts’ error in the present case. [Para 154]

15. Verghese Stephen v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2007) Cri LJ 4080 (Delhi High Court)

  • Observation:
    • Relied on Vibhuti Narayan Chaubey to hold that Section 216 CrPC does not permit deletion of charges, reinforcing that charges must proceed to trial’s conclusion. [Para 154]
  • Relevance:
    • Supported the Court’s conclusion that deleting NDPS charges under Section 216 CrPC was impermissible, as the provision is limited to alteration or addition. [Para 154]

16. Rajesh Sharma v. Union of India (2009) SCC OnLine Del 1330

  • Observation:
    • Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, not listed in Schedule I of NDPS Rules, does not attract NDPS Act offences, as it is regulated under the D& C Act as a Schedule H drug. [Para 34]
  • Relevance:
    • Cited by respondents but rejected by the Supreme Court, which followed Sanjeev V. Deshpande to hold that NDPS Act applies to all scheduled substances, overturning this view. [Para 34]

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

  1. What was the primary issue in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors. regarding the NDPS Act?
    • A) Whether Buprenorphine Hydrochloride is a narcotic drug under the NDPS Act.
    • B) Whether dealing in a psychotropic substance listed in the NDPS Act Schedule but not in Schedule I of NDPS Rules constitutes an offence under Section 8(c).
    • C) Whether the NDPS Act applies only to substances listed in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules.
    • D) Whether the D& C Act overrides the NDPS Act for all psychotropic substances.
    • Correct Answer: B
    • Explanation: The case centered on whether Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, listed in the NDPS Act Schedule but absent from Schedule I of NDPS Rules, falls under Section 8(c)’s prohibition. The Court held it does, rejecting the lower courts’ reliance on Schedule I exclusivity. [Para 38, 156]
  2. What did the Supreme Court hold regarding the retrospective application of Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014)?
    • A) It applies prospectively to avoid prejudice to accused persons.
    • B) It applies retrospectively, but final acquittals based on Rajesh Kumar Gupta remain undisturbed.
    • C) It applies only to cases filed after 2014.
    • D) It creates a new offence, violating Article 20(1).
    • Correct Answer: B
    • Explanation: The Court ruled that Sanjeev V. Deshpande applies retrospectively, clarifying the NDPS Act’s intent without creating a new offence. Final acquittals are preserved, but pending cases follow Sanjeev. [Paras 158-160]
  3. Under Section 216 CrPC, what can a court do with respect to charges?
    • A) Delete charges and discharge the accused.
    • B) Alter or add to charges before judgment.
    • C) Discharge the accused after framing charges.
    • D) Transfer the case to another court without trial.
    • Correct Answer: B
    • Explanation: Section 216 CrPC allows courts to alter or add charges before judgment but does not permit deletion or discharge post-charge framing. The Trial Courts’ actions in deleting NDPS charges were held impermissible. [Paras 151-154, 161]
  4. Why did the Supreme Court reject the application of the doctrine of prospective overruling in this case?
    • A) The NDPS Act explicitly mandates retrospective application.
    • B) Sanjeev V. Deshpande did not discuss prospective overruling, and no compelling reason existed to apply it.
    • C) The D& C Act required prospective application.
    • D) Article 20(1) mandated prospective application.
    • Correct Answer: B
    • Explanation: The Court noted Sanjeev V. Deshpande’s silence on prospective overruling and found no overwhelming reason to deviate from the default rule of retrospectivity, aligning with the NDPS Act’s objectives. [Paras 158, 159]
  5. What is the relationship between the NDPS Act and the D& C Act as per the judgment?
    • A) The D& C Act overrides the NDPS Act for Schedule H drugs.
    • B) The NDPS Act’s provisions are in addition to, not in derogation of, the D& C Act.
    • C) The NDPS Act applies only to substances not listed in the D& C Act.
    • D) The two Acts are mutually exclusive.
    • Correct Answer: B
    • Explanation: Section 80 of the NDPS Act clarifies that its provisions supplement the D& C Act, allowing concurrent application for substances like Buprenorphine with dual medical and abusive potential. [Paras 29, 157]

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

  1. What was the core dispute in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors.?
    • Answer: The dispute revolved around whether dealing in Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, a psychotropic substance listed in the NDPS Act Schedule but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, constitutes an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. The lower courts held it fell under the D& C Act, but the Supreme Court ruled that the NDPS Act applies, as Section 8(c) covers all scheduled substances. [Paras 38, 156]
  2. Why did the Supreme Court overrule State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta?
    • Answer: The Court overruled Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2007) because it wrongly held that substances not listed in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules were exempt from Section 8 of the NDPS Act. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) clarified that Section 8(c) prohibits dealing in all psychotropic substances in the NDPS Act Schedule, rendering Rajesh Kumar Gupta’s interpretation incorrect. [Paras 27, 132, 158]
  3. How did the Supreme Court interpret the scope of Section 216 CrPC in this case?
    • Answer: The Court held that Section 216 CrPC allows courts to alter or add charges before judgment but does not permit deletion of charges or discharge of an accused after charges are framed under Section 228 CrPC. The Trial Courts’ deletion of NDPS charges and transfer to the Metropolitan Magistrate were procedurally invalid, as charges must lead to conviction or acquittal. [Paras 151-154, 161]
  4. Why was the retrospective application of Sanjeev V. Deshpande deemed appropriate?
    • Answer: The Court found that Sanjeev V. Deshpande clarified the NDPS Act’s original intent under Section 8(c) without creating a new offence, thus not violating Article 20(1). Retrospective application aligned with the NDPS Act’s objective to combat drug abuse, and no compelling reason justified prospective overruling. Final acquittals were preserved to avoid reopening settled cases. [Paras 158-160, 159]
  5. How does the NDPS Act interact with the D& C Act according to the judgment?
    • Answer: The NDPS Act and D& C Act operate concurrently for substances listed in both, as per Section 80 of the NDPS Act, which states that NDPS provisions are in addition to, not in derogation of, the D& C Act. Substances like Buprenorphine, with medical and abusive potential, are regulated under both regimes, rejecting the exclusivity of D& C Act regulation. [Paras 29, 157]
  6. What was the significance of the Court’s ruling on Article 20(1) of the Constitution?
    • Answer: The Court held that retrospective application of Sanjeev V. Deshpande did not violate Article 20(1), which prohibits conviction under ex-post facto laws. Sanjeev clarified existing law, not created a new offence, and the NDPS Act’s intent always covered scheduled substances. The ruling ensured no prejudice to accused rights while upholding the Act’s purpose. [Paras 133, 159]
  7. What directions did the Supreme Court issue in this case?
    • Answer: The Court set aside the High Court and Trial Court orders, which had dismissed NDPS charges and transferred cases to the Metropolitan Magistrate. It directed the Special Judge, NDPS, to try the accused under the NDPS Act and conclude the trials expeditiously. The judgment was to be circulated to all High Courts. [Paras 162-164]
  8. Why did the Court preserve final acquittals based on Rajesh Kumar Gupta?
    • Answer: The Court preserved final acquittals to avoid the practical difficulty of reopening settled cases, balancing public interest and judicial efficiency. However, pending cases, including those predating Sanjeev V. Deshpande, were to follow the clarified law to ensure consistency and uphold the NDPS Act’s objectives. [Para 160]
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,