DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE v. RAJ KUMAR ARORA
Discusses interpretation of statutes, retrospective application of law, and the doctrine of prospective overruling.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 498
Decision Date: 17-04-2025
List of Laws
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act"); The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 ("NDPS Rules"); The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ("D&C Act"); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"); Constitution of India, 1949; General Clauses Act, 1897; General Principles of Law
- The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act"): The judgment extensively discusses the NDPS Act, particularly Section 8, which prohibits certain operations related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It clarifies that dealing in psychotropic substances mentioned in the Schedule to the NDPS Act, even if not listed in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, constitutes an offence under Section 8(c). The judgment analyzes the exception to Section 8, emphasizing that dealing must be for medical or scientific purposes, in the manner and to the extent provided by the Act and Rules, and in accordance with license terms. Section 2(xxiii) defining "Psychotropic substance" is also discussed. Section 9 empowers the Central Government to permit and regulate certain activities subject to Section 8. Section 22 discusses punishment for contravention of the Act. Section 29 discusses conspiracy. Section 36 provides for constitution of special courts. Section 37(1)(b)(ii) discusses rigour for bail. Section 76 empowers the Central Government to make rules. Section 79 of the NDPS Act is mentioned in the context of transit of substances. Section 80 provides that the provisions of the NDPS Act and Rules are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
- The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 ("NDPS Rules"): The judgment extensively discusses the NDPS Rules, emphasizing that they must be consistent with the NDPS Act. It analyzes Chapters VI and VII of the Rules, which relate to import, export, and transhipment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Rule 2(k) states that words and expressions used in the Rules, but defined in the Act, shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Act. Rule 53 provides for a general prohibition on import and export of substances specified in Schedule I. Rule 55 discusses the 'Application for an Import Certificate'. Rule 57 discusses 'Transit' of substances. Rule 58 discusses the 'Application for Export Authorisation'. Rule 60 relates to 'Transhipment'. Rule 61 discusses the 'Procedure for Transhipment'. Rule 64 on 'General Prohibition' states that no person shall manufacture, possess, transport, import inter-State, export inter-State, sell, purchase, consume or use any of the "psychotropic substances specified under Schedule I" of the Rules. Rule 65 relating to the ‘Manufacture of psychotropic substances' is discussed. Rule 66 on ‘Possession etc. of psychotropic substances' is discussed. Rule 67 on 'Transport of psychotropic substance' is discussed. Rule 67A came to be inserted in the NDPS Rules.
- The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ("D&C Act"): The judgment discusses the D&C Act in relation to the NDPS Act, emphasizing that the provisions of the NDPS Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the D&C Act, as per Section 80 of the NDPS Act. It clarifies that while the D&C Act deals with various operations of manufacture, sale, purchase etc. of drugs generally, the NDPS Act deals with a more specific class of drugs and is therefore, a special law on the subject. The judgment also mentions Schedule H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 provides that even if the complaint is not filed by the Drug Inspector, the cognizance against the accused is not bad.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"): The judgment discusses Section 216 CrPC, which empowers the Court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. It clarifies that this power must be exercised after a charge has been framed by the Trial Court under Section 228 CrPC. The judgment also refers to Section 227 CrPC (Discharge), Section 482 CrPC (Inherent powers of High Court), and Section 482 of the CrPC. Section 228 of the code of Criminal Procedure provides that if, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he may transfer 'the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment discusses Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which provides protection in respect of conviction for offences. It clarifies that a person cannot be convicted of an offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. Article 136 is mentioned in the context of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
- General Clauses Act, 1897: The judgment refers to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides that where an enactment is repealed, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect the previous operation of the repealed enactment or affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment extensively discusses the doctrine of prospective overruling, its origin, application, and limitations. It clarifies that the default rule is that the overruling of a decision generally operates retrospectively, but the doctrine of prospective overruling is an exception to this rule. The judgment also discusses the Blackstonian theory, which states that judges do not make law, they only discover or find the correct law. The judgment also discusses the doctrine of stare decisis.
🔒 For Members Only