Stay updated with key 2025—2026 High Court rulings on the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and State liquor laws. This update offers focused summaries of latest cases concerning the effect of non-compliance with S. 52-A on conviction, the twin conditions for bail under S. 37, whether violations of search and seizure provisions are to be examined at the bail stage, sustainability of charges under Ss. 27-A and 29, and the administrative nature of the Collector’s power to transfer a country liquor licence.
A. Narcotics, Intoxicants and Liquor — Liquor — Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 — R. 28 — “Transfer of Licence” — Liquor licence — Transfer and inclusion/deletion of names — Whether administrative function or quasi-judicial function — Validity of exercise of power to review order by Collector — Held, Collector, licensing authority has discretion in matter of permitting transfer and permitting legal heirs/legal representatives of deceased licensee to enjoy privilege — No statutory obligation on Collector to hear and decide matter judicially like Judge — Power exercised by Collector under R. 28 and Cl. 17 of Form CL-III of Country Liquor Rules administrative in nature, not exercise of quasi-judicial power — While exercising administrative function, having regard to need of transparency and fair play, Collector may choose to hear parties concerned before taking decision, however, that by itself will not alter nature of power — Since power exercised by Collector administrative in nature, said authority will have power to review its decisions even in absence of any express enabling provision [Saraswatibai Gangagoud Anantwar v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 2 HCC (Bom) 641]
B. Narcotics, Intoxicants and Liquor — Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 27-A and 29 — Financing illicit traffic and criminal conspiracy — Framing of charge — Sustainability of — Prosecution relying upon electronic communications, monetary transactions and allegations of repeated procurement of contraband over extended period — Sufficiency of material — Held, charge under Ss. 27-A and 29 can be sustained only where material on record prima facie discloses the essential ingredients of financing illicit traffic or participation in criminal conspiracy — Mere reliance on electronic communications and monetary transactions, without establishing a live link or nexus with trafficking of contraband, is insufficient to attract said provisions — Where prosecution seeks to infer financing or conspiracy from transactions which themselves have been impermissibly clubbed together and from communications not specifically referring to any contraband or trafficking activity, invocation of Ss. 27-A and 29 cannot be sustained — Held on facts, alleged communications neither referred to the contraband in question nor established any nexus between the monetary transactions and illicit trafficking, and no independent incriminating material was shown demonstrating financing of or participation in trafficking activities — Ingredients of S. 27-A were not prima facie established and prosecution failed to disclose material sufficient to sustain allegations of conspiracy under S. 29 — Charges under Ss. 27-A and 29 held unsustainable and accused discharged [Dhruv Dalip Tahil v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 3 HCC (Bom) 27]
C. Narcotics, Intoxicants and Liquor — Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 52-A, 42, 50 and 20(b)(ii)(C) — Recovery and conscious possession of commercial quantity of ganja — Effect of procedural irregularities under S. 52-A — Whether alleged non-compliance or deviation from procedure under S. 52-A and Standing Orders vitiates conviction under S. 20(b)(ii)(C) despite cogent evidence establishing recovery and conscious possession of commercial quantity of ganja from accused — Secret information received by investigating officer regarding transportation of ganja in vehicle, recorded in Rojnamcha and communicated to superior officer under S. 42, with independent witnesses associated — Notices under S. 50 served — Packets containing contraband ganja recovered, weighed, homogenised and sealed — FSL confirmed ganja — Appellants convicted under S. 20(b)(ii)(C) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment with fine — Challenge to — Held, prosecution successfully established factum of recovery and conscious possession of contraband ganja from accused beyond reasonable doubt — Testimony of investigating officer remained consistent, coherent, and duly corroborated by contemporaneous documentary evidence, including Rojnamcha entries, panchnamas, seizure memos, and arrest memos — Chain of custody and recovery of contraband duly established — Accused apprehended while travelling in vehicle from which commercial quantity of ganja recovered and failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding lawful possession — Further held, non-compliance or deviation from procedure under S. 52-A not ipso facto fatal unless discrepancies create doubt regarding recovery, possession, or integrity of seized substance — Courts take holistic view of evidence and procedural lapses — In absence of any material discrepancy regarding nature, quantity, or recovery of seized ganja, and in absence of any possibility of tampering or false implication, substantive prosecution evidence sufficient to sustain conviction notwithstanding alleged procedural irregularities under S. 52-A — Therefore, conviction and sentence affirmed — Appeal dismissed [Shivam Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2026) 1 HCC (Chh) 30]
D. Narcotics, Intoxicants and Liquor — Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 37, 8, 21, 25 and 29 — Grant of bail — Twin condition test (i) satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail — Exercise and scope of — Recovery of commercial quantity contraband from accused — Rigours of S. 37 attracted — Recording of finding under S. 37 sine qua non for granting bail to accused involved in offences under the 1985 Act — Held, twin conditions cumulative and not alternative — Held on facts, the petitioner tried to run away on seeing police officials and threw the contraband and jumped into the drain — Petitioner a foreign national without requisite documents — Thus, based on such conduct accused is likely to commit an offence while on bail — Further held, narrow parameter of bail available under S. 37 not satisfied on facts — Merely because accused in custody for two years, cannot be regarded as a sufficient ground for grant of bail under S. 37 — Bail application dismissed [John Oha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 414]
E. Narcotics, Intoxicants and Liquor — Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 37, 8(c), 20(b), 22(c), 23(c), 27-A, 29 and 67 — Recovery of commercial quantity of psychotropic substance (LSD) — Grant of bail — Circumstances under — NCB laying trap during investigation of drug trafficking, accused being called to collect parcel at DTDC Office — Accused apprehended at the spot, with parcel containing 100 LSD paper blots, collectively weighing approximately 3.5 g — Accused seeking bail — Held, prosecution has not produced any direct or circumstantial material to demonstrate that accused knew or ought to have known about the nature of the contents of the package — For the limited purpose of bail under S. 37 of the NDPS Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe accused not guilty of the offence — Twin conditions under S. 37 NDPS Act met — Nothing on record to suggest that accused poses a flight risk or is likely to commit any offence while on bail — Held on facts, accused neither the consignee of the parcel nor was the package addressed to his residence — Further held, accused cooperated with the investigation, including voluntarily handing over of mobile phone and providing the password — No material evidence to conclude that accused would misuse the liberty of bail, if granted — Bail application allowed, subject to conditions — Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 483 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 439 [Saneesh Soman v. Narcotics Control Bureau, (2025) 3 HCC (Del) 747]
F. Narcotics, Intoxicants and Liquor — Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — S. 37 — Person suspected of possessing narcotic drug — Bail application — Violation of provisions of NDPS Act on search and seizure — Whether needs to be considered while considering bail application — Held, violation of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act need not be looked into by bail court, while considering bail application of accused — At stage of bail, court only has FIR, seizure mahazar and statement of witnesses recorded by police — Therefore, there cannot be any prima facie finding based on these records at stage of bail — Unless entire case is known, legality or validity of action taken by detecting officers, while conducting search need not be examined in depth by bail court — Even if final report filed, not desirable to go into detail about violation of statutory provision at bail stage because any prima facie finding on it will prejudice interest of either accused or prosecution — Regarding non-compliance of mandatory provisions, prosecution can explain same by adducing evidence before trial court at appropriate stage — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 439 — Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 483 [Jomon v. State of Kerala, (2025) 1 HCC (Ker) 299]
