NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 1. S. 8(c) – Prohibition – Scope – Whether dealing in psychotropic substances listed only in Schedule to the Act but not in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules constitutes an offence under S. 8(c) – Held, Yes. The term “psychotropic substance” in S. 8(c) must be read with S. 2(xxiii), which covers all substances listed in the Schedule to the Act. Prohibition under S. 8(c) applies to all psychotropic substances in the Act’s Schedule; absence of the substance in Schedule I to the 1985 Rules does not exempt its dealing from S. 8(c). No part of the Schedule to the Act can be rendered nugatory. (Paras 79, 90(i)–(ii), 156–158)

NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985

1. S. 8(c) – Prohibition – Scope – Whether dealing in psychotropic substances listed only in Schedule to the Act but not in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules constitutes an offence under S. 8(c) – Held, Yes.

The term “psychotropic substance” in S. 8(c) must be read with S. 2(xxiii), which covers all substances listed in the Schedule to the Act. Prohibition under S. 8(c) applies to all psychotropic substances in the Act’s Schedule; absence of the substance in Schedule I to the 1985 Rules does not exempt its dealing from S. 8(c). No part of the Schedule to the Act can be rendered nugatory. (Paras 79, 90(i)–(ii), 156–158)

2. Ss. 8(c), 9, 10 – Scheme of Act and Rules – Prohibitory power derived from the Act, not from Rules – Rules cannot cut down the statute.

Rules 53 and 64 of the NDPS Rules do not constitute the source of prohibition; they are exceptions within Chapters VI and VII. The true source of prohibition is S. 8(c). Subordinate legislation cannot contradict, dilute or override the parent statute. (Paras 29–34, 79–82, 90(iii), 156)

3. Psychotropic substances – Schedule to Act and Schedule I to Rules – Distinction and effect.

Schedule I substances under the Rules are subjected to higher, stricter restrictions and may be dealt with only for limited purposes under Chapter VIIA. Substances listed only under the Act’s Schedule are also regulated and may be dealt with for “medical or scientific purposes” subject to strict compliance with the Act and Rules. (Paras 80, 81, 90(iv)–(ix))

NDPS RULES, 1985

4. Rules 53, 64 – Nature – Exception, not genus – Earlier view in Rajesh Kumar Gupta, (2007) 1 SCC 355, overruled.

The earlier interpretation that Rules 53/64 form the genus for all subsequent rules in Chapters VI/VII and that only Schedule I substances are regulated/covered is incorrect. Rules 53 and 64 are exceptions, not controlling provisions. The judgment in Rajesh Kumar Gupta was wrongly decided and stands expressly overruled. (Paras 29–34, 79–82, 90(x)–(xiv))

5. Rules 53, 64, 65, 66 – Post-2015 amendments – Clarificatory.

The 2015 restructuring (G.S.R. 224(E), 25-03-2015) reorganised language but did not alter substance. The underlying scheme remained unchanged—merely clarified. (Paras 82–85)

DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT, 1940

6. S. 80 NDPS Act – “In addition to and not in derogation of” – Overlap of NDPS Act and D&C Act – Prosecution under both permissible.

Where an offence under the D&C Act is made out, prosecution under the NDPS Act is not excluded. NDPS Act is a special statute dealing with a specific class of drugs. Both statutes may operate cumulatively; provisions of NDPS Act do not derogate from D&C Act. (Paras 86–90, 90(xv))

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

7. S. 216 – Alteration of charge – Deletion or discharge not permissible after framing of charge.

S. 216 CrPC permits only addition or alteration of charge, not deletion. Once a charge is framed, the accused must be either acquitted or convicted. Trial courts erred in deleting NDPS charges and transferring cases to Magistrate. (Paras 11, 154–155, 161)

DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT

8. Prospective overruling – Principles restated – Applicability only when clearly expressed – Otherwise, decisions apply retrospectively.

The Court reiterates that:

• Judicial declarations normally operate retrospectively;

• Prospective overruling is an exception, permissible only when expressly stated in the clearest terms;

• A Court interpreting a statute merely declares the law as it always stood;

• Overruling restores the correct interpretation as operative from inception;

• High Courts or subordinate courts cannot themselves treat an SC judgment as prospective.
  (Paras 91–99, 93, 94, 95–98)

9. Retrospective application of Sanjeev V. Deshpande – No prospective saving – Pending cases governed by clarified law.

The Court holds that Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) 13 SCC 1 must operate retrospectively. No “prospective overruling” was invoked therein. Pending cases filed before Sanjeev are governed by the clarified interpretation. Only final acquittals based solely on Rajesh Kumar Gupta remain undisturbed. (Paras 156–160)

EVIDENCE & TRIAL

10. NDPS charges – Trial must proceed under NDPS Act – Cases wrongly transferred to Magistrate set aside.

Since dealing in Buprenorphine Hydrochloride is an offence under S. 8(c) NDPS Act, the Special Court (NDPS) must try the case. Orders deleting NDPS charges and transferring matters to Magistrate under D&C Act set aside. (Paras 155–163)

CONCLUSION

11. Buprenorphine Hydrochloride – Offence made out under NDPS Act even though not in Schedule I to Rules.

Dealing in Buprenorphine Hydrochloride—listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules—constitutes an offence under S. 8(c). Trial courts and High Courts erred in holding otherwise. NDPS charges restored; trials to proceed before Special Court. (Paras 156–164)