Bombay HC: Where a special statute like FSSA occupies the field with an overriding effect (Section 89 FSSA), the general law (IPC) cannot be invoked, and simultaneous prosecution under both is not permissible

 IPC sections 272, 273, and 328 cannot be invoked when the same subject matter is covered by FSSA, a special law - Section 59 of FSSA is broader than IPC Sections 272 and 273 - Where a special statute like FSSA occupies the field with an overriding effect (Section 89 FSSA), the general law (IPC) cannot be invoked, and simultaneous prosecution under both is not permissible - 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application (Apl) No. 1776 of 2025

Decided On: 24.04.2026

Mohammad Bilal Moammad Yakub and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vrushali V. Joshi, J.

 Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:6496-DB, MANU/MH/4024/2026

Print Page

Kerala HC: What conditions the court should impose for releasing accused found in possession of intermediate quantity of contraband?

Admittedly, the quantity involved is

'intermediate' as per the relevant notifications. {Para8}

9. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 were ordered to be

released on bail as per order dated 18.07.2022 in B.A.

No.5043/2022 by this Court.

10. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted

that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. It is

submitted that he is accused in Crime Nos.21/2022,

347/2015 and 177/2019.

11. Having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case mentioned above, the

petitioner can be ordered to be released on bail on

stringent conditions.

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed as

follows:

(a) The petitioner shall be released on bail on

his executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent

sureties each for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(b) He shall appear before the Investigating

Officer on Mondays and Saturdays between

10 A.M. and 11 A.M. till the final report is

filed.

(c) He shall not attempt to interfere with the

investigation or influence any witnesses.

(d) He shall surrender his Indian Passport

before the Jurisdictional Court. If he does

|not have a passport, he shall file an affidavit

to that effect, within a period of one

week from the date of his release.

(e) He shall not involve in any other cases of

like nature while on bail.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

BAIL APPL. NO. 5531 OF 2022

 AKHIL JOHN  Vs  STATE OF KERALA

PRESENT

MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

Dated this the 21st day of July, 2022

Print Page

Bombay HC: [NDPS Act] Combined Weight Of LSD & Blotter Relevant To Determine Small Or Commercial Quantity of Contraband

 For all the above reasons, we hold that a blotter paper forms an integral part of the L.S.D. (drug) when put on it for consumption and, as such, the weight of the blotter paper containing L.S.D. will have to be considered for determining a small or commercial quantity of the offending drug under the NDPS Act, 1985. Further, we also hold that the blotter paper that carries the drug (L.S.D. drops), which facilitates its consumption as a whole, is a preparation, mixture, or neutral substance within the meaning of the NDPS Act, 1985.{Para 113}

114. Since the referral order refers to L.S.D. as a drug, we have continued to adopt that term when answering the two questions referred to. However, in terms of Section 2 (xxiii) of the NDPS Act, there is no dispute that L.S.D. will have to be classified as a psychotropic substance and not a drug.

115. In conclusion, therefore, we endorse the view taken in Anuj Keshwani (supra) that the combined weight of the L.S.D. and the blotter is relevant to determine small or commercial quantities and not the view in Hitesh Malhotra (supra) and Harsh Meshram (supra) that only the weight of the pure L.S.D. is the determinative factor. The reference is answered accordingly.

In the High Court of Bombay at Goa

(Before M.S. Sonak and Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ.)

H.S. Arun Kumar, Vs State of Goa, 

Criminal Application (Bail) No. 752/2021 (F)

Decided on November 9, 2022, 

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 4696 : (2022) 4 Bom CR (Cri) 517.

Print Page

Whether accused is entitled to get default bail if chargesheet in NDPS Act is filed without Analyst Report?

 10. Therefore, the point to be decided is whether the

investigation is completed or not within the period mentioned. The

investigation is defined in Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C. Section 2(h) says

that "investigation includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf". Therefore, the investigation includes all the proceedings

under the Code for the collection of evidence. In this case, the

investigating officer has already taken proceedings to get the analyst

report by submitting requisition before the court concerned and it is

already reached the laboratory. Therefore, it cannot be said that

simply because the analyst report is not received from the laboratory,

the investigation is not complete. Therefore, if the investigating officer reported that the requisition for getting the analyst report is already submitted before the authority concerned, and the lab report is awaited, it cannot be said that the investigation is incomplete. But if the investigating officer is mainly relying upon a lab report to prove  his case, and even in such a situation, a final report is filed without the report, it cannot be said that it is a final report as contemplated under law. Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code says about the submission of the final report. Section 173 Cr.P.C says that, after the conclusion of the investigation, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward the report in the form prescribed with the details mentioned therein. If the investigating officer after the investigation concluded that the offence alleged against the petitioner is maintainable based on the documents submitted before the Court, it can be treated as a complete report u/s.173 Cr.P.C. In such a situation, the investigating officer can submit before the Court that the analyst report is not received and that is a supplementary evidence or corroborative evidence to prove the charge sheet. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the final report submitted before the court concerned is a defective final report. But in cases where the prosecution cannot prove a case without the aid of the analyst report and if a final report is filed in such cases without the analyst report, it can only be treated as an incomplete final report and in such situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled default bail at that stage. Therefore, the entitlement of default bail u/s.167 Cr.P.C is to be decided based on the facts of each case. If the prosecution is relying the analyst report as a corroborative piece of evidence, it cannot be treated that if the final report is submitted without analyst report, that is an incomplete report. It cannot be said in such a situation that the investigation is not complete especially because Section 2(h) of the Cr.P.C states that the investigation includes all the proceedings under the court for the collection of evidence. If the investigating officer already completed the proceedings to get an analyst report by submitting appropriate

requisition before the court and the court concerned forwarded the

same to the laboratory, it cannot be said that simply because the

analyst report is not produced, the investigation is not completed.

What is necessary to get default bail u/s.167 (2)Cr.P.C is the failure to complete the investigation within the time prescribed for

investigation. Once the investigating officer after completing the

investigation and sending the requisition to the authority concerned to get the analyst report, submitted the final report, it cannot be said

that there is an incomplete final report unless it is a case in which the

entire prosecution case is relying solely based on the analyst report.

In this background, the present bail application is to be considered.

11. Admittedly, Hashish oil and MDMA seized from the apartment

are commercial quantities. The detecting officer specifically stated

that the identification of Hashish oil and MDMA are confirmed through the Excise Inspector. Whether the Excise Inspector is competent or an expert to identify the contraband as Hashish oil or MDMA is a matter of evidence. While considering a bail application u/s.439 Cr.P.C, this court cannot go into such questions and conclude that the Excise Inspector who identified the article as MDMA and Hashish oil is not an expert or a competent authority. In this case, admittedly the requisition for getting the analyst report is already submitted and the matter has already reached the lab concerned. The ADGP also submitted that the report will be obtained within two weeks. In this case even though the prosecution is relying the analyst report, they rely on the same to corroborate the oral evidence already collected. Hence it cannot be said that the final report submitted in this case is incomplete and the petitioner is entitled default bail.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

B.A.No.5747 of 2021

PRESENT

 MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

SAMEEER Vs  STATE OF KERALA

Dated this the 8th day of September, 2021

Print Page

Whether accused can be convicted under NDPS Act even if seized contraband was not produced before court?

 Turning to the facts in the present matter, the evidence of PW15 Surender Singh shows that from and out of 7 bags of poppy husk, samples weighing about 500 grams were taken out of each bag. Out of these 3500 grams thus taken out, two samples of 500 grams were independently sealed while rest 2500 grams were also sealed in a separate pouch. These samples were marked A, B and C respectively. The bags were also independently sealed and taken in custody and Exbt-5 seizure memo which recorded all these facts was also signed by the Accused. We have gone through the cross-examination of the witness. At no stage even a suggestion was put to the witness that either the signatures of the Accused were taken by fraud, coercion or mis-representation or that the signatures were not of the Accused or that they did not understand the purport of the seizure memo. It would therefore be difficult to even suggest that the seizure of contraband weighing 223 kgs was not proved by the prosecution. In our view this fact stood conclusively proven.

17. If the seizure of the material is otherwise proved on record and is not even doubted or disputed the entire contraband material need not be placed before this Court. If the seizure is otherwise not in doubt, there is no requirement that the entire material ought to be produced before the Court. At times the material could be so bulky, for instance as in the present material when those 7 bags weighed 223 kgs that it may not be possible and feasible to produce the entire bulk before the Court. If the seizure is otherwise proved, what is required to be proved is the fact that the samples taken from and out of the contraband material were kept intact, that when the samples were submitted for forensic examination the seals were intact, that the report of the forensic experts shows the potency, nature and quality of the contraband material and that based on such material, the essential ingredients constituting an offence are made out.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1497 of 2019 

Decided On: 27.09.2019

State of Rajasthan  Vs.  Sahi Ram

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

U.U. Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019 SC 4723

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to comply S 50 of NDPS Act if contraband is seized from bag of accused?

The question which arises before us is whether Section 50(1) was required to be complied with when charas was recovered only from the bag of the appellant and no charas was found on his person. 

 On the search of the appellant in the presence of the gazetted officer, a biscuit colour jute bag was recovered from the appellant, and Rs. 2,400/- cash in the denomination of 24 notes of Rs. 100/- each was found in the left pocket of the appellant’s trouser. When the bag was opened, a black polythene cover containing nineteen rectangular broken sheets of a blackish / deep brown colour weighing 1.5 kilograms was recovered. The sheets were tested and were found to be charas.

PW-2 conducted a search of the bag of the appellant as well as of the appellant’s trousers. Therefore, the search conducted by PW-2 was not only of the bag which the appellant was carrying, but also of the appellant’s person. Since the search of the person of the appellant was also involved, Section 50 would be attracted in this case. Accordingly, PW-2 was required to comply with the requirements of Section 50(1). As soon as the search of a person takes place, the requirement of mandatory compliance with Section 50 is attracted, irrespective of whether contraband is recovered from the person of the detainee or not. It was, therefore, imperative for PW-2 to inform the appellant of his legal right to be searched in the presence of either a gazetted officer or a magistrate.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 459 OF 2017

SK RAJU @ ABDUL HAQUE @ JAGGA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL .

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud

Dated:September 05, 2018.

Print Page

When delay in sending sample of contraband for chemical examination will not vitiate trial?

 Another submission that has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the seized articles were not sent immediately for chemical examination. The FSL report, Ex. P-14, dated 15.9.1986 states that a letter along with a sealed packet was received with seals intact. The said report further mentions that packet was covered in white cloth and on opening of the packet, the examiner found a cylindrical tin and the substance on examination was found to be an opium having 1.44% morphine. The seal being intact, the description of the case number and the impression of seal having been fixed on memo of recovery, there is no reason or justification to discard the prosecution case on the ground of delay on this score. In Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab[40], a two-Judge Bench while dealing with the question of delay in sending the samples of opium to the FSL, opined that it was of no consequence, for the fact of the recovery of the said sample from the possession of the appellant had been proven and established by cogent and reliable evidence and that apart, it had also come in evidence that till the date of parcels of samples were received by the Chemical Examiner, the seal put on that parcel was intact. Under these circumstances, the Court ruled that the said facts clearly proves and establishes that there was no tampering with the aforesaid seal in the sample at any stage and the sample received by the analyst for chemical examination contained the same opium which was recovered from the possession of the appellant. The plea that there was 40 days delay was immaterial and would not dent the prosecution case.1

Supreme Court of India

Mohan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 April, 2015

Citation;AIR2015SC2098,  2015CriLJ2811, (2015)6SCC222

Bench: Dipak Misra, S.A. Bobde

Print Page