Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by an individual charged under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession of Buprenorphine Hydrocholride. The appellant was initially acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, but the State appealed, resulting in a conviction and a 10-year sentence. The Supreme Court later allowed a review petition, permitting the appellant to raise additional grounds based on a precedent where a similar substance was deemed permissible for personal use. The court noted that the total quantity of Buprenorphine in possession was 25 ampoules, which was within the small quantity limit for medicinal use as per the NDPS Rules. The court emphasized that the appellant's possession was justified under Rule 66, which allows personal medicinal use of psychotropic substances up to a specified limit. The court referenced previous judgments that supported this interpretation. Ultimately, the court acquitted the appellant, stating that no offence was made out under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, and discharged his bail bonds.
Headnote
A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances - Possession of Psychotropic Substances - Personal Use Exemption - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 21 - The court found that the appellant's possession of Buprenorphine Hydrocholride was for personal medicinal use and fell within the prescribed limit under Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules. Consequently, the court held that no offence under Section 21 was made out, leading to the acquittal of the appellant (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's possession of Buprenorphine Hydrocholride was in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant of the charges under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, and discharged his bail bonds.
Law Points
- Possession of psychotropic substances
- Personal medicinal use
- Small quantity exemption
- NDPS Act
- 1985
- Rule 66 of NDPS Rules
