Supreme Court quashes NDPS case against woman, says drug users at end of supply chain may be victims

The Supreme Court has quashed a prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, against a woman accused of receiving marijuana from two alleged sellers near an educational institution. The court stressed that people at the end of the narcotics supply chain should not automatically be treated merely as offenders, warning that prosecution and imprisonment before trial could push some deeper into the drug trade.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said law enforcement should focus on reducing the availability of narcotics and dismantling the supply chain rather than concentrating solely on punishing users.

“Curbing availability and breaking the supply chain shall be the focus and not merely punishing the user, who is actually the victim,” the bench observed.

The court cautioned that prosecuting people who may themselves be victims of the drug trade could have consequences beyond the immediate case, particularly when they are held in prison before trial.

“Prosecuting such victims can have a spiralling effect and incarceration pending trial, can lead to more disastrous consequences of the victim joining the supply chain, by reason only of associations developed in prisons,” the judges said.

Why the court set aside the prosecution

The woman was listed as the fourth accused in the NDPS case. According to the prosecution, she approached two people near a college and received a cover containing marijuana, which she then placed in her bag.

Police apprehended all three individuals. The two alleged sellers were found carrying a larger quantity of marijuana in their Scooty. However, no contraband was recovered from the woman or her bag, a fact confirmed by statements made by police officers.

The case against her relied substantially on statements attributed to the co-accused and her alleged confession. After examining the circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

“Trite is the principle that no confession can be relied on. The contraband also having not been recovered from the appellant, we are of the opinion that there would be no useful purpose served in carrying out a prosecution against the appellant,” the bench observed.

The court's decision to allow the appeal resulted in the prosecution against the woman being quashed.

Court warns against counterproductive treatment of alleged drug users

The bench expressed concern that criminal proceedings and pre-trial detention could be counterproductive when the accused are themselves at the receiving end of the narcotics supply chain.

It warned that imprisonment could expose such individuals to new associations that might draw them further into the trade. The judges therefore emphasised the need to distinguish between targeting those responsible for supplying and distributing narcotics and prosecuting people alleged to be at the end of that chain.

The court's observations placed the focus on curbing the availability of drugs and breaking the supply network, rather than merely punishing users.

Lawyers who appeared in the case

For the petitioner, the advocates were Dinesh Kothari, B.S. Randhawa, Gopal Singh Chauhan and Harsh Gupta. Goldy Goyal appeared as the advocate-on-record.

For the respondents, Devina Sehgal appeared as the advocate-on-record, assisted by advocates Srikanth Varma Mudunuru and Yatharth Kansal.