In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that dealing with a psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act is an offence under Section 8(c) of the Act, even if the substance is not mentioned in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules.
The judgment came in the case titled Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors., where a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dealt with appeals challenging the discharge of the accused by the trial court and the Delhi High Court.
“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 Supreme Court firmly stated.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Res Judicata Applies to Criminal Cases, Bars Re-litigation of Settled Issues
Background of the Case:
The case began when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) recovered a large quantity of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride ampoules from the premises of the accused Raj Kumar Arora and others in 2003. The substance is listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules.
The trial court had framed charges under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, but later deleted the charges invoking Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), following the Delhi High Court’s interpretation based on State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2007). The court had held that unless a substance is listed in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, offences under the NDPS Act cannot be made out.
This led the DRI to approach the Supreme Court.
The central legal question before the apex court was:
"Whether dealing with a psychotropic substance listed under the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not mentioned in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules constitutes an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act?"
Answering this question in the affirmative, the Supreme Court held that the earlier reliance on the Rajesh Kumar Gupta decision was misplaced. The Court cited its own decision in Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014), where it had clearly ruled that all psychotropic substances listed in the NDPS Act’s Schedule are governed by the Act, irrespective of their inclusion in the NDPS Rules.
The bench observed:
“For an accused to claim that his actions do not amount to an offence under Section 8, he must establish that the drug was dealt with: (a) for medical or scientific purposes,
(b) in the manner and to the extent provided by the NDPS Act or Rules, and
(c) in accordance with any licence, permit, or authorisation, if required.”
None of these conditions were met by the accused in this case.
The court also emphasized that the NDPS Act stands independently of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and that provisions of both laws can simultaneously apply, depending on the context.
Concluding that the High Court and trial court had erred in deleting charges and remanding the matter under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the DRI.
The top court reinstated the charges under Sections 8(c), 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act against the accused. It clarified that any unauthorized dealing in a psychotropic substance listed under the NDPS Act Schedule—such as Buprenorphine Hydrochloride—is punishable under the Act.
“The Schedule to the NDPS Act is the governing list of psychotropic substances for the purposes of Section 8(c). Exclusion from the NDPS Rules does not dilute the statutory offence,” Justice Pardiwala wrote in the judgment.
Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS RAJ KUMAR ARORA & ORS.
