Cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Section 21, which covers manufactured drugs and preparations containing them, shows the three-tier structure. Small and commercial quantities for each drug are fixed by Central Government notification; the Supreme Court refers to the notification of 19 October 2001 as the one that specifies them.

In Hira Singh v. Union of India (2020) 20 SCC 272, a three-judge bench held that when a mixture of a narcotic drug with neutral substances is seized, the weight of the neutral substances is not excluded. The whole mixture counts in deciding whether the quantity is small or commercial. The court declared that E. Micheal Raj, which had looked only at the pure drug content, is not good law.

Every offence under the Act is cognizable. For offences under Sections 19, 24 and 27A and offences involving commercial quantity, Section 37 bars bail unless the Public Prosecutor has had a chance to oppose and, if he opposes, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

In State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo ([2024] 7 S.C.R. 1314), the Supreme Court set aside a bail order that did not address Section 37. It repeated that the two conditions are cumulative and that 'reasonable grounds' means more than a prima facie case. Where the quantity is below commercial and none of those sections is charged, the Section 37 bar does not apply and bail follows the ordinary law under Section 483 of the BNSS (formerly Section 439 of the CrPC).

Section 42 allows an authorised officer to enter and search a building, conveyance or enclosed place between sunrise and sunset on personal knowledge or written information. Searching at night without a warrant requires recorded grounds. A copy of the information or grounds must reach the officer's immediate superior within seventy-two hours.

Section 50 gives a person about to be searched the right to be taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. A female can be searched only by a female. In Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609, a Constitution Bench held that the officer must inform the suspect of this right, that the duty is mandatory, and that 'substantial compliance' is not enough. A conviction based only on recovery from the person during a non-compliant search is vitiated. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surat Singh (2026 INSC 240), the court upheld an acquittal where the accused was also offered a third option of being searched by the police officer.

Section 52A requires the officer to prepare an inventory of the seized drugs and apply to a Magistrate to certify it, certify photographs and allow representative samples to be drawn in the Magistrate's presence. The certified inventory, photographs and samples are primary evidence at trial.

In Union of India v. Mohanlal (2016) 3 SCC 379, the court held that samples are to be drawn in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate, that the Act does not require samples at the time of seizure, and that the application must be made without undue delay. In Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal ([2025] 8 S.C.R. 987), the court noted that Section 52A has not been treated as mandatory, but a complete failure to follow it, with other lapses, made the forensic report unreliable and the accused was acquitted.

In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that officers invested with powers under Section 53 are police officers for Section 25 of the Evidence Act (now Section 23(1) of the BSA). A confession made to them cannot be used to convict, and a statement recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as a confessional statement at trial.

Under Section 36A, offences punishable with more than three years are triable only by the Special Court. A Magistrate may authorise custody for up to fifteen days. Offences punishable with up to three years may be tried summarily.

For Sections 19, 24 and 27A and commercial quantity, Section 36A(4) reads the ninety-day limit in Section 167(2) of the CrPC (now Section 187 of the BNSS) as one hundred and eighty days. The Special Court may extend it up to one year only on a Public Prosecutor's report showing the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for continued detention. If the charge sheet is not filed in time, the accused can claim default bail.