Supreme Court of India Judgements

47080 Judgements hosted as on 15/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Narcotics

Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 — Conviction and Sentence — Separate punishments for offences under Section 20 as well as offences under Sections 25 and 29 are permissible, as these are distinct and independent offences, even if they arise from the same transaction.

Apr 9, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 332 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEM RAJ Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Acquittal Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 50 — Compliance with search provisions — Accused must be apprised of legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, not a Police Officer — Offering a third option to be searched before a Police Officer contravenes Section 50 and vitiates the entire trial — High Court correctly set aside conviction based on non-compliance with Section 50

Mar 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 240 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SURAT SINGH ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) — Sections 8, 20, 23 — Recovery of contraband — Search and seizure — Procedural safeguards — Failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the Act concerning search and seizure, including informing the accused of their rights to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, vitiates the entire process and raises reasonable doubt. (Paras 8, 9, 13)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 95 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DONIYAR VILDANOV Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…..of…

Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) — Conviction for possession of commercial quantity of ganja (23.500 kg) and conspiracy — Appeal against concurrent findings of lower courts — Absence of independent witnesses — Failure to secure independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case, especially under the NDPS Act, if the testimonies of official witnesses are consistent, coherent, and credible, and no material doubt is raised in cross-examination. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 21, 22)

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1417 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOTHI @ NAGAJOTHI Vs. THE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi,…

Narcotics

“Divided Verdict in Narcotics Case: One Conviction Upheld, Another Overturned Due to Procedural Lapses” Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 42, 50 and 67 – The appeals arise from a common judgment by the Gujarat High Court, dismissing appeals against a trial court’s conviction of the appellants under the NDPS Act for possession of narcotics – The main issues revolve around the compliance with mandatory procedures of the NDPS Act during the search and seizure, and the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – The appellants contend non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, questioning the seizure procedure and the reliability of witnesses – The NCB argues that the procedures were followed correctly, the witnesses are reliable, and there was no motive to falsely implicate the appellants – The Court dismissed Anwarkhan’s appeal, upholding his conviction, while allowing Appellant’s appeal, acquitting him due to insufficient evidence and doubts about the seizure procedure – The Court found the evidence against Anwarkhan convincing but had reservations about the evidence against Appellant, particularly the identification and the admissibility of his confessional statement – The Court applied the principles from the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, which ruled that confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not admissible as evidence – Anwarkhan’s conviction stands, while Appellant is acquitted and his bail bonds discharged. The Court directed Anwarkhan to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 351 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FIRDOSKHAN KHURSHIDKHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna Bhalachandra…

Acquittal Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 29 read with 20(b)(ii)(c) and 25, 67, 41 to 44 – The court discussed the applicability of Section 67 statements and the compliance with Sections 41 to 44 of the NDPS Act – By virtue of the decision in Tofan Singh, the benefit is to be granted to the appellants herein in regard to the inadmissibility of their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985 – These appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as that of the Trial Court – The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving benefit of doubt.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024:INSC:290 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. NAJMUNISHA SOLE APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2319 OF 2009 AND ABDUL HAMID CHANDMIYA ALIAS LADOO BAPU SOLE APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL…

Acquittal Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) – Seizure of ganja from four accused under the NDPS Act – The Court pointed out the glaring loopholes and fatal flaws in the prosecution case, such as the doubtful weighment of the contraband, the flawed sampling procedure, the missing link evidence, the inadmissible confession, and the illegal conviction of the appellants who were not present at the spot.

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAMMED KHALID AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal Narcotics

(CrPC) – Section 313 – NDPS,1985 – Indeed, the appellant may not have earlier raised the issue regarding the inadequacy of examination under Section 313 of CrPC – However, in this case, the omission goes to the root of the matter as far as the appellant is concerned – Appellant has undergone incarceration of five and a half years – If, after the lapse of more than twenty­two years, he is again subjected to examination under Section 313 of CrPC, it will cause prejudice to him – Appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.

Nov 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NABABUDDIN @ MALLU @ ABHIMANYU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

Acquittal Narcotics

(NDPS) – Section 52A – Disposal of contraband – Mere fact that the samples were drawn in the presence of a gazetted officer is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of subsection (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act- No evidence has been brought on record to the effect that the procedure prescribed under subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act was followed while making the seizure and drawing sample such as preparing the inventory and getting it certified by the Magistrate – No evidence has also been brought on record that the samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list of the samples so drawn were certified by the Magistrate – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed.

Oct 15, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YUSUF @ ASIF — Appellant Vs. STATE — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 3191…

You missed

Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d) — Disproportionate Assets — Chargesheet splitting — Allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and tribal lands misuse — Two separate chargesheets filed from the same FIR, R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C) — Overlapping allegations in both cases — Plea of double jeopardy raised — Supreme Court noted overlapping allegations and previous conviction with suspended sentence, inclined to grant bail in the present case as well.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw
State Laws

Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 — Section 12 — Set-off of losses — Accumulated losses of amalgamating company cannot be set-off against income of amalgamated company as it had not suffered the losses itself.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw
Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13B — Divorce by Mutual Consent — Settlement agreement reached in mediation — Wife withdrew consent before Second Motion for divorce — Held, while ordinarily consent can be withdrawn, when a settlement agreement has been entered into for full and final settlement of disputes, it is not open for a party to resile from its terms without demonstrating fraud, force, or undue influence — Wife failed to prove her allegations of fraud or compulsion by Husband, and her claims about substantial jewelry not mentioned in the settlement were unsubstantiated and raised suspicion due to delayed assertion — Held, wife’s withdrawal of consent was not justified.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 36 — Enforcement of Consent Award — Construction of compromise deed and consent award — Promoters undertook to defend proceedings and ensure no liability recovered from Appellants by any forum — Deposit of an amount by Appellants to prevent execution of award against their properties constituted a liability that triggered Promoters’ obligation under the consent award — High Court erred in deferring enforceability of consent award until final confirmation by the highest court of appeal — Appeal allowed, impugned judgment set aside.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw