Supreme Court Judgments
1. Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 Headnote: Officers of the NCB, DRI, and other agencies empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “Police Officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, any confessional statement recorded by them under Section 67 is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
2. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 Headnote: The rigors of Section 37 (bail restrictions) must be balanced against the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. If an accused has been incarcerated for a substantial period without the trial concluding, the Constitutional Court can grant bail despite the commercial quantity.
3. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 Headnote: Section 50 (Right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate) is mandatory. The suspect must be explicitly informed of this right. Failure to inform the suspect vitiates the conviction if the recovery was made from the person of the accused.
4. Hira Singh v. Union of India (2020) SCC OnLine SC 382 Headnote: In case of a seizure of a mixture of narcotic drugs with a neutral substance, the entire weight of the mixture is to be considered for determining whether the quantity is “small” or “commercial,” not just the pure drug content.
5. Union of India v. Mohanlal (2016) 3 SCC 379 Headnote: Detailed guidelines issued regarding the seizure, storage, and disposal of contraband. The seizure must be followed by immediate sampling in the presence of a Magistrate under Section 52A. If the inventory and photographs are not certified by the Magistrate, the trial is vitiated.
6. E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau (2008) 5 SCC 161 (Overruled) Headnote: Note: This judgment held that only pure drug content matters. It was overruled by Hira Singh (2020), but remains relevant for cases decided between 2008 and 2020.
7. Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 Headnote: A Constitution Bench held that the requirement under Section 50 to inform the accused of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer is mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It is not a mere formality.
8. Arif Khan @ Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2018) 18 SCC 380 Headnote: Even if the accused “waives” their right to be searched before a Magistrate, the search must still be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate if the provisions of Section 50 are attracted. The “Third Option” (search by the police officer himself) is not valid even with consent.
9. Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 Headnote: Fair investigation requires that the informant and the Investigating Officer (IO) should not be the same person. (Note: This was later clarified/diluted by the Mukesh Singh judgment in 2020, stating it is not an absolute rule but depends on bias).
10. Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120 Headnote: A Constitution Bench held that the mere fact that the informant and the Investigating Officer are the same person does not automatically vitiate the trial. The accused must prove actual bias or prejudice caused.
High Court Judgments
1. Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India (2020) Bombay High Court Headnote: Section 27A (Financing Illicit Traffic) is not applicable to an individual paying for drugs for personal consumption or for another’s consumption. “Financing” implies active support of the illegal drug trade network.
2. M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, DRI (2020) Madras High Court (Upheld by SC) Headnote: Indefeasible right to Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC arises if the investigation agency fails to file a complete charge sheet/complaint within the statutory period (180 days). Filing a preliminary report without the FSL report may entitle the accused to bail.
3. Sujit Tiwari v. State of Gujarat (2020) Gujarat High Court Headnote: In cases where the accused is not found in possession of contraband but is implicated based on the statement of a co-accused (admissible only under Section 30 Evidence Act), the rigors of Section 37 may be relaxed.
4. Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab (2019) Punjab & Haryana High Court Headnote: Non-compliance with Standing Order 1/88 (now Rules 2022) regarding the manner of drawing samples (duplicate samples, weight) creates a serious doubt in the prosecution’s case, entitling the accused to acquittal.