Supreme Court: NDPS Offence Stands Even If Substance Is Not in NDPS Rules Schedule
Last Updated on April 22, 2025 by Athi Venkatesh
SC: NDPS Act Applies Even If Substance Missing From Rules Schedule
The Supreme Court has ruled that activities involving psychotropic substances listed in the NDPS Act Schedule—but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules—are punishable under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra restored NDPS charges against an accused found with Buprenorphine Hydrochloride. Though the substance is not in the Rules’ Schedule I, it appears in the NDPS Act’s Schedule.
The trial court had dropped charges using powers under Section 216 of the CrPC. It relied on the State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2007) ruling, which said prosecution under the NDPS Act was not valid if the substance was absent from the NDPS Rules Schedule. The High Court upheld this decision.
Aggrieved, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence approached the Supreme Court. The key issue was whether such possession amounts to an offence under Section 8(c) if the substance appears only in the Act, not in the Rules.
The Court answered in the affirmative. Justice Pardiwala, writing the judgment, stated that the High Court ignored Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014). In that case, the Court had overruled Rajesh Kumar Gupta, clarifying that all substances listed in the NDPS Act Schedule are prosecutable under the Act, regardless of the Rules.
The Court emphasized that Buprenorphine Hydrochloride possession qualifies as an offence unless the accused proves:
- The activity was for medical or scientific use,
- It complied with the NDPS Act or Rules, and
- It followed proper licensing or authorization.
It further ruled that courts cannot delete charges using Section 216 CrPC. The Supreme Court also reiterated that later judgments apply retrospectively unless stated otherwise.
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court ruling, and reinstated the NDPS charges.
Case Title: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors.
